《研究的艺术》(第五版)封面

研究的技艺

The Craft of Re­search

社会科学家写作

Writ­ing for So­cial Sci­ent­ists

霍华德· S ·贝克尔

HOWARD S. BECKER

十二周内完成期刊文章写作

Writ­ing Your Journal Art­icle in Twelve Weeks

温迪· 劳拉· 贝尔彻

WENDY LAURA BELCHER

撰写民族志田野笔记

Writ­ing Eth­no­graphic Field­notes

罗伯特· 埃默森、 雷切尔· 弗雷茨 琳达·

ROBERT M. EMER­SON, RACHEL I. FRETZ, AND LINDA L. SHAW

《芝加哥语法、用法和标点指南》

The Chicago Guide to Gram­mar, Us­age, and Punc­tu­ation

布莱恩· A ·加纳

BRYAN A. GARNER

创意研究的艺术

The Art of Cre­at­ive Re­search

菲利普· 杰拉德

PHILIP GER­ARD

关于修订

On Re­vi­sion

威廉· 杰尔马诺

WIL­LIAM GERMANO

从笔记到叙述

From Notes to Nar­rat­ive

克里斯汀· 戈德西

KRISTEN GHOD­SEE

科学传播的艺术

The Craft of Sci­entific Com­mu­nic­a­tion

约瑟夫· E ·哈蒙 艾伦·G· 格罗斯

JOSEPH E. HAR­MON AND ALAN G. GROSS

像政治学家一样思考

Think­ing Like a Polit­ical Sci­ent­ist

克里斯托弗· 霍华德

CHRIS­TOPHER HOWARD

倾听人们的声音

Listen­ing to People

安妮特· 拉罗

AN­NETTE LAR­EAU

正确引用

Cite Right

查尔斯· 利普森

CHARLES LIPSON

如何撰写学士论文

How to Write a BA Thesis

查尔斯· 利普森

CHARLES LIPSON

经济写作

Eco­nom­ical Writ­ing

迪尔德丽· 南森· 麦克洛斯基

DEIRDRE NANSEN MC­CLO­S­KEY

《芝加哥多元分析写作指南》

The Chicago Guide to Writ­ing about Mul­tivari­ate Ana­lysis

简· 米勒

JANE E. MILLER

《芝加哥数字写作指南》

The Chicago Guide to Writ­ing about Num­bers

简· 米勒

JANE E. MILLER

《芝加哥科学传播指南》

The Chicago Guide to Com­mu­nic­at­ing Sci­ence

斯科特· L ·蒙哥马利

SCOTT L. MONT­GOMERY

研究的起点

Where Re­search Be­gins

托马斯· 穆拉尼 克里斯托弗· 雷亚

THOMAS S. MUL­LANEY AND CHRIS­TOPHER REA

作家的饮食

The Writer’s Diet

海伦· 斯沃德

HELEN SWORD

研究论文、学位论文和毕业论文写作手册

A Manual for Writers of Re­search Pa­pers, Theses, and Dis­ser­ta­tions

凯特 · 图拉比安

KATE L. TUR­A­BIAN

学生大学论文写作指南

Stu­dent’s Guide to Writ­ing Col­lege Pa­pers

凯特 · 图拉比安

KATE L. TUR­A­BIAN

田野故事

Tales of the Field

约翰· 范· 马南

JOHN VAN MAANEN

芝加哥大学出版社网站上提供了完整的丛书目录。

A com­plete list of series titles is avail­able on the Uni­ver­sity of Chicago Press web­site.

研究的技艺

The Craft of Re­search

第五版

Fifth Edition

韦恩·C·布斯

Wayne C. Booth

格雷戈里·G·科伦布

Gregory G. Colomb

约瑟夫·M·威廉姆斯

Joseph M. Wil­li­ams

约瑟夫·比祖普

Joseph Bizup

威廉·T·菲茨杰拉德

Wil­liam T. FitzGer­ald

芝加哥大学出版社

The Uni­ver­sity of Chicago Press

芝加哥和伦敦

Chicago and Lon­don

芝加哥大学出版社,芝加哥 60637

The Uni­ver­sity of Chicago Press, Chicago 60637

芝加哥大学出版社,伦敦

The Uni­ver­sity of Chicago Press, Ltd., Lon­don

© 1995、2003、2008、2016、2024 芝加哥大学

© 1995, 2003, 2008, 2016, 2024 by The Uni­ver­sity of Chicago

版权所有。未经书面许可,不得以任何方式使用或复制本书任何部分,但评论文章和书评中的简短引用除外。更多信息,请联系芝加哥大学出版社,地址:1427 E. 60th St., Chicago, IL 60637。

All rights re­served. No part of this book may be used or re­pro­duced in any man­ner what­so­ever without writ­ten per­mis­sion, ex­cept in the case of brief quo­ta­tions in crit­ical art­icles and re­views. For more in­form­a­tion, con­tact the Uni­ver­sity of Chicago Press, 1427 E. 60th St., Chicago, IL 60637.

预计2024年出版

Pub­lished 2024

美国印刷

Prin­ted in the United States of Amer­ica

33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 1 2 3 4 5

33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24     1 2 3 4 5

ISBN-13:978-0-226-83388-0(精装)

ISBN-13: 978-0-226-83388-0 (cloth)

ISBN-13:978-0-226-82667-7(纸质)

ISBN-13: 978-0-226-82667-7 (pa­per)

ISBN-13:978-0-226-82666-0(电子书)

ISBN-13: 978-0-226-82666-0 (ebook)

DOI:https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226826660.001.0001

DOI: ht­tps://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226826660.001.0001

美国国会图书馆出版物编目数据

Lib­rary of Con­gress Cata­loging-in-Pub­lic­a­tion Data

作者:布斯,韦恩·C. | 科伦布,格雷戈里·G. | 威廉姆斯,约瑟夫·M. | 比祖普,约瑟夫,1966年生 | 菲茨杰拉德,威廉·T.

Names: Booth, Wayne C., au­thor. | Colomb, Gregory G., au­thor. | Wil­li­ams, Joseph M., au­thor. | Bizup, Joseph, 1966– au­thor. | FitzGer­ald, Wil­liam T., au­thor.

标题:研究的技艺 / Wayne C. Booth、Gregory G. Colomb、Joseph M. Williams、Joseph Bizup、William T. FitzGerald。

Title: The craft of re­search / Wayne C. Booth, Gregory G. Colomb, Joseph M. Wil­li­ams, Joseph Bizup, Wil­liam T. FitzGer­ald.

其他书目:芝加哥写作、编辑和出版指南。

Other titles: Chicago guides to writ­ing, edit­ing, and pub­lish­ing.

描述:第五版。| 芝加哥;伦敦:芝加哥大学出版社,2024 年。| 系列:芝加哥写作、编辑和出版指南 | 包括参考文献和索引。

De­scrip­tion: Fifth edi­tion. | Chicago ; Lon­don : The Uni­ver­sity of Chicago Press, 2024. | Series: Chicago guides to writ­ing, edit­ing, and pub­lish­ing | In­cludes bib­li­o­graph­ical ref­er­ences and in­dex.

标识符:LCCN 2023053638 | ISBN 9780226833880(精装)| ISBN 9780226826677(平装)| ISBN 9780226826660(电子书)

Iden­ti­fi­ers: LCCN 2023053638 | ISBN 9780226833880 (cloth) | ISBN 9780226826677 (pa­per­back) | ISBN 9780226826660 (ebook)

学科:LCSH:研究方法论 | 技术写作 | BISAC: 语言 艺术 学科/写作/通用 |参考资料/研究分类:LCC Q180.55.M4 B66 2024 | DDC 001.4/2—dc23/eng/20231201

Sub­jects: LCSH: Re­search—Meth­od­o­logy. | Tech­nical writ­ing. | BISAC: LAN­GUAGE ARTS DIS­CIP­LINES / Writ­ing / Gen­eral | REF­ER­ENCE / Re­search Clas­si­fic­a­tion: LCC Q180.55.M4 B66 2024 | DDC 001.4/2—dc23/eng/20231201

国会图书馆记录可在以下网址查阅:https://lccn.loc.gov/2023053638

LC re­cord avail­able at ht­tps://lccn.loc.gov/2023053638

本文符合 ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992(纸张耐久性)的要求。

This pa­per meets the re­quire­ments of ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (Per­man­ence of Pa­per).

悼念

In Me­moriam

韦恩·C·布斯

Wayne C. Booth

(1921–2005)

(1921–2005)

格雷戈里·G·科伦布

Gregory G. Colomb

(1951–2011)

(1951–2011)

约瑟夫·M·威廉姆斯

Joseph M. Wil­li­ams

(1933–2008)

(1933–2008)

内容

Con­tents

前言:本版的目标

Pre­face: The Aims of This Edi­tion

引言:您的研究和您的受众

In­tro­duc­tion: Your Re­search and Your Audi­ence

I.1 什么是研究?

I.1  What Is Re­search?

I.2 与受众建立联系

I.2  Con­nect­ing with Your Audi­ence

I.3 了解你的角色

I.3  Un­der­stand­ing Your Role

I.4 设想你的听众的角色

I.4  Ima­gin­ing the Role of Your Audi­ence

1.5 如何使用本书

I.5  How to Use This Book

▶ 小贴士:了解受众的清单

▶ Quick tip: A Check­list for Un­der­stand­ing Your Audi­ence

我提出问题,寻求答案

I  Ask­ing Ques­tions, Seek­ing An­swers

序言:项目规划概述

Pro­logue: Plan­ning Your Pro­ject—An Over­view

▶ 小贴士:如何独自或与团队合作完成研究项目

▶ Quick Tip: Sus­tain­ing a Re­search Pro­ject Alone and in Groups

1  从主题到问题

1  From Top­ics to Ques­tions

1.1 从兴趣到主题

1.1  From an In­terest to a Topic

1.2 从聚焦主题到研究问题

1.2  From Fo­cused Topic to Re­search Ques­tion

1.3 最重要的问题:那又怎样?

1.3  The Most Sig­ni­fic­ant Ques­tion: So What?

▶ 小技巧:寻找主题

▶ Quick Tip: Find­ing Top­ics

2  从问题到难题

2  From Ques­tions to a Prob­lem

2.1 理解研究问题

2.1  Un­der­stand­ing Re­search Prob­lems

2.2 区分“纯粹”研究和“应用”研究

2.2  Dis­tin­guish­ing Between “Pure” and “Ap­plied” Re­search

2.3 将研究与实际后果联系起来

2.3  Con­nect­ing Re­search to Prac­tical Con­sequences

2.4 寻找一个好的研究问题

2.4  Find­ing a Good Re­search Prob­lem

2.5 学习如何处理问题

2.5  Learn­ing to Work with Prob­lems

▶ 小贴士:如何利用经验不足的机会

▶ Quick Tip: Mak­ing an Op­por­tun­ity of In­ex­per­i­ence

二、资料来源

II  Sources and Re­sources

序言:资料来源与权威研究

Pro­logue: Sources and Au­then­tic Re­search

3  寻找和评估信息来源

3  Find­ing and Eval­u­at­ing Sources

3.1 理解三种信息来源

3.1  Un­der­stand­ing Three Types of Sources

3.2 充分利用图书馆

3.2  Mak­ing the Most of the Lib­rary

3.3 在线查找资源

3.3  Loc­at­ing Sources On­line

3.4 评估信息来源的相关性和可靠性

3.4  Eval­u­at­ing Sources for Rel­ev­ance and Re­li­ab­il­ity

3.5 探索可预测的来源

3.5  Look­ing Bey­ond Pre­dict­able Sources

3.6 利用人脉资源推进研究

3.6  Us­ing People to Fur­ther Your Re­search

▶ 小贴士:使用生成式人工智能

▶ Quick Tip: Us­ing Gen­er­at­ive Ar­ti­fi­cial In­tel­li­gence

4个  引人入胜的信息来源

4  En­ga­ging Sources

4.1 记录完整的书目信息

4.1  Re­cord­ing Com­plete Bib­li­o­graphic In­form­a­tion

4.2 积极调动信息来源

4.2  En­ga­ging Sources Act­ively

4.3 阅读理解问题

4.3  Read­ing for a Prob­lem

4.4 阅读论证

4.4  Read­ing for Ar­gu­ments

4.5 阅读数据和支持

4.5  Read­ing for Data and Sup­port

4.6 系统地记笔记

4.6  Tak­ing Notes Sys­tem­at­ic­ally

4.7 注释你的资料来源

4.7  An­not­at­ing Your Sources

▶ 小贴士:如何应对不确定时刻

▶ Quick Tip: Man­aging Mo­ments of Un­cer­tainty

三、提出你的论点

III  Mak­ing Your Ar­gu­ment

序言:构建研究论点

Pro­logue: As­sem­bling a Re­search Ar­gu­ment

5.  如何提出有力的论点:概述

5  Mak­ing Good Ar­gu­ments: An Over­view

5.1 论证即对话

5.1  Ar­gu­ment as Con­ver­sa­tion

5.2 构建论证的核心

5.2  As­sem­bling the Core of Your Ar­gu­ment

5.3 解释你的论证理由

5.3  Ex­plain­ing Your Reas­on­ing with War­rants

5.4 识别并回应预期的问题和异议

5.4  Ac­know­ledging and Re­spond­ing to An­ti­cip­ated Ques­tions and Ob­jec­tions

5.5 规划你的研究论点

5.5  Plan­ning Your Re­search Ar­gu­ment

5.6 创建你的企业文化

5.6  Cre­at­ing Your Ethos

▶ 小贴士:一个常见的错误——依赖你已知的知识

▶ Quick Tip: A Com­mon Mis­take—Fall­ing Back on What You Know

6  提出索赔

6  Mak­ing Claims

6.1 确定您应该提出的索赔类型

6.1  De­term­in­ing the Kind of Claim You Should Make

6.2 评估您的索赔

6.2  Eval­u­at­ing Your Claim

6.3 提升信誉度的合格声明

6.3  Qual­i­fy­ing Claims to En­hance Your Cred­ib­il­ity

▶ 小贴士:让你的索赔可质疑

▶ Quick Tip: Make Your Claim Con­test­able

7.  汇集理由和证据

7  As­sem­bling Reas­ons and Evid­ence

7.1 运用理由来规划你的论点

7.1  Us­ing Reas­ons to Plan Your Ar­gu­ment

7.2 区分证据与理由

7.2  Dis­tin­guish­ing Evid­ence from Reas­ons

7.3 确定你需要哪种类型的证据

7.3  De­term­in­ing the Kind of Evid­ence You Need

7.4 区分证据与报告

7.4  Dis­tin­guish­ing Evid­ence from Re­ports of It

7.5 评估你的证据

7.5  Eval­u­at­ing Your Evid­ence

▶ 小贴士:收集证据的同时评估证据质量

▶ Quick Tip: As­sess Your Evid­ence as You Gather It

8份  逮捕令

8  War­rants

8.1 日常推理中的论证

8.1  War­rants in Every­day Reas­on­ing

8.2 研究论证中的证据

8.2  War­rants in Re­search Ar­gu­ments

8.3 测试授权

8.3  Test­ing War­rants

8.4 何时申请搜查令

8.4  Know­ing When to State a War­rant

8.5 使用搜查令检验你的论点

8.5  Us­ing War­rants to Test Your Ar­gu­ment

8.6 对他人签发的搜查令提出质疑

8.6  Chal­len­ging Oth­ers’ War­rants

▶ 小贴士:理由、证据和搜查令

▶ Quick Tip: Reas­ons, Evid­ence, and War­rants

9  致谢与回应

9  Ac­know­ledg­ments and Re­sponses

9.1 关于您的研究问题的问题

9.1  Ques­tions About Your Re­search Prob­lem

9.2 关于你论证合理性的问题

9.2  Ques­tions About the Sound­ness of Your Ar­gu­ment

9.3 设想与你的论点不同的其他方案

9.3  Ima­gin­ing Al­tern­at­ives to Your Ar­gu­ment

9.4 决定承认什么

9.4  De­cid­ing What to Ac­know­ledge

9.5 将你的回应构建成子论点

9.5  Fram­ing Your Re­sponses as Sub-Ar­gu­ments

9.6 致谢与回应的词汇

9.6  The Vocab­u­lary of Ac­know­ledg­ment and Re­sponse

▶ 小贴士:三种可预见的争论

▶ Quick Tip: Three Pre­dict­able Dis­agree­ments

第四部分:陈述你的论点

IV  De­liv­er­ing Your Ar­gu­ment

序言:计划、写作和思考

Pro­logue: Plan­ning, Writ­ing, and Think­ing

10  规划与起草

10  Plan­ning and Draft­ing

10.1 为什么需要正式论文?

10.1  Why a Formal Pa­per?

10.2 论文规划

10.2  Plan­ning Your Pa­per

10.3 避免三种常见但有缺陷的模式

10.3  Avoid­ing Three Com­mon but Flawed Pat­terns

10.4 将计划转化为草案

10.4  Turn­ing Your Plan into a Draft

▶ 小贴士:如何应对写作中的焦虑

▶ Quick Tip: Man­aging Anxi­ety as a Writer

11  修改和整理

11  Re­vis­ing and Or­gan­iz­ing

11.1 像读者一样思考

11.1  Think­ing Like a Reader

11.2 修改你的框架

11.2  Re­vis­ing Your Frame

11.3 修改你的论点

11.3  Re­vis­ing Your Ar­gu­ment

11.4 修订您的组织

11.4  Re­vis­ing Your Or­gan­iz­a­tion

11.5 检查段落

11.5  Check­ing Your Para­graphs

11.6 让你的草稿冷却一下,然后再重新审视它

11.6  Let­ting Your Draft Cool, Then Re­vis­it­ing It

▶ 小贴士:摘要

▶ Quick Tip: Ab­stracts

12.  整合资料

12  In­cor­por­at­ing Sources

12.1 总结、释义和引用

12.1  Sum­mar­iz­ing, Para­phras­ing, and Quot­ing

12.2 撰写公平摘要

12.2  Cre­at­ing a Fair Sum­mary

12.3 创建公平的释义

12.3  Cre­at­ing a Fair Para­phrase

12.4 使用直接引用

12.4  Us­ing Dir­ect Quo­ta­tions

12.5 混合使用概括、释义和引用

12.5  Mix­ing Sum­mary, Para­phrase, and Quo­ta­tion

12.6 向读者展示证据的相关性

12.6  Show­ing Read­ers How Evid­ence Is Rel­ev­ant

12.7 引用来源的社会重要性

12.7  The So­cial Im­port­ance of Cit­ing Sources

12.8 四种常见的引用格式

12.8  Four Com­mon Cita­tion Styles

12.9 防止无意抄袭

12.9  Guard­ing Against In­ad­vert­ent Pla­gi­ar­ism

▶ 小贴士:如何在论文中标注引用

▶ Quick Tip: In­dic­at­ing Cita­tions in Your Pa­per

13.  以视觉方式传达证据

13  Com­mu­nic­at­ing Evid­ence Visu­ally

13.1 选择视觉或语言表达方式

13.1  Choos­ing Visual or Verbal Rep­res­ent­a­tions

13.2 选择最有效的图形

13.2  Choos­ing the Most Ef­fect­ive Graphic

13.3 表格、图表和图形的设计

13.3  Design­ing Tables, Charts, and Graphs

13.4 表格、柱状图和折线图的具体指南

13.4  Spe­cific Guidelines for Tables, Bar Charts, and Line Graphs

13.5 以合乎伦理的方式表示数据

13.5  Rep­res­ent­ing Data Eth­ic­ally

▶ 小贴士:寻找机会加入视觉证据

▶ Quick Tip: Look for Op­por­tun­it­ies to In­clude Visual Evid­ence

14  引言和结论

14  In­tro­duc­tions and Con­clu­sions

14.1 引言的常见结构

14.1  The Com­mon Struc­ture of In­tro­duc­tions

14.2 第一步:陈述背景

14.2  Step 1: Stat­ing a Con­text

14.3 步骤 2:陈述你的问题

14.3  Step 2: Stat­ing Your Prob­lem

14.4 第三步:陈述你的回应

14.4  Step 3: Stat­ing Your Re­sponse

14.5 设定合适的节奏

14.5  Set­ting the Right Pace

14.6 找到你的最初几个词

14.6  Find­ing Your First Few Words

14.7 撰写结论

14.7  Writ­ing Your Con­clu­sion

▶ 小贴士:在标题中使用关键词

▶ Quick Tip: Use Key Terms in Titles

15  修改风格:清晰地讲述你的故事

15  Re­vis­ing Style: Telling Your Story Clearly

15.1 评判风格

15.1  Judging Style

15.2 清晰写作的前两个原则

15.2  The First Two Prin­ciples of Clear Writ­ing

15.3 第三原则:先有旧后有新

15.3  A Third Prin­ciple: Old Be­fore New

15.4 主动语态和被动语态的选择

15.4  Choos­ing Between the Act­ive and Pass­ive Voice

15.5 最后一条原则:复杂性最后

15.5  A Fi­nal Prin­ciple: Com­plex­ity Last

15.6 编辑润色

15.6  Ed­it­or­ial Pol­ish

▶ 小贴士:最快的复习策略

▶ Quick Tip: The Quick­est Re­vi­sion Strategy

16 项  研究报告

16  Re­search Present­a­tions

16.1 向审计师汇报

16.1  Present­ing to Aud­it­ors

16.2 做初步介绍

16.2  Giv­ing a Pre­lim­in­ary Present­a­tion

16.3 做最终汇报

16.3  Giv­ing a Fi­nal Present­a­tion

▶ 小贴士:把你的演讲当作一场表演来对待

▶ Quick Tip: Treat Your Present­a­tion as a Per­form­ance

最后的一些考虑

V  Some Last Con­sid­er­a­tions

17  研究伦理

17  The Eth­ics of Re­search

17.1 你对自己的道德义务

17.1  Your Eth­ical Ob­lig­a­tion to Your­self

17.2 你对听众和同行研究人员的道德义务

17.2  Your Eth­ical Ob­lig­a­tions to Your Audi­ence and Fel­low Re­search­ers

17.3 研究与社会责任

17.3  Re­search and So­cial Re­spons­ib­il­ity

17.4 最后思考

17.4  A Fi­nal Thought

给教师的18条  建议

18  Ad­vice for Teach­ers

18.1 强制实施正式规则的风险

18.1  The Risks of Im­pos­ing Formal Rules

18.2 关于任务场景:营造好奇心氛围

18.2  On As­sign­ment Scen­arios: Cre­at­ing a Ground for Curi­os­ity

18.3 接受学习过程中不可避免的混乱

18.3  Ac­cept­ing the In­ev­it­able Messi­ness of Learn­ing

我们的债务

Our Debts

附录:书目及其他资源简明指南

Ap­pendix: A Brief Guide to Bib­li­o­graphic and Other Re­sources

指数

In­dex

前言

Pre­face

本版的目标

The Aims of This Edition

这本《研究的艺术》第五版是我们——约瑟夫·比祖普和威廉·T·菲茨杰拉德——第二次参与编写。我们视这项工作为荣幸和责任。能够重写这本如此通俗易懂地展现并传达了我们都非常敬仰的三位杰出学者和教师——韦恩·C·布斯、格雷戈里·G·科伦布和约瑟夫·M·威廉姆斯——智慧的著作,我们深感荣幸。我们也意识到我们对本书读者的责任,无论他们是初次接触本书,还是多年来一直阅读本书的读者。事实上,本书的读者群体遍布全球;它已被翻译成阿拉伯语、中文、韩语、俄语、西班牙语、藏语以及其他多种语言。布斯、科伦布和威廉姆斯在编写本书时,面向的读者群体十分广泛,从高中高年级学生和大学一年级写作课的学生,到研究生和其他高级研究人员,甚至包括商业、政府、医学和法律等领域的专业人士。

This fifth edi­tion of The Craft of Re­search is the second that we—Joseph Bizup and Wil­liam T. FitzGer­ald—have pre­pared. We have re­garded our work as an honor and a re­spons­ib­il­ity. It is an honor to re­work a book that so ac­cess­ibly cap­tures and con­veys the wis­dom of three gif­ted schol­ars and teach­ers both of us ad­mire: Wayne C. Booth, Gregory G. Colomb, and Joseph M. Wil­li­ams. We also re­cog­nize our re­spons­ib­il­ity to the book’s read­ers, both those who are new to it and those it has at­trac­ted over the years. In­deed, this audi­ence is an in­ter­na­tional one; the book has been trans­lated into Ar­abic, Chinese, Korean, Rus­sian, Span­ish, Tibetan, and many other lan­guages. Booth, Colomb, and Wil­li­ams ad­dressed their book to an audi­ence ran­ging from ad­vanced high school stu­dents and first-year un­der­gradu­ates in com­pos­i­tion classes, to gradu­ate stu­dents and other ad­vanced re­search­ers, and even to pro­fes­sion­als work­ing in fields such as busi­ness, gov­ern­ment, medi­cine, and law.

与前几版一样,第五版旨在帮助各类读者成为更优秀的研究者、思考者和沟通者。具体而言,本版旨在:

Like pre­vi­ous edi­tions, this fifth edi­tion aims to help all of these sorts of read­ers be­come bet­ter re­search­ers, thinkers, and com­mu­nic­at­ors. Spe­cific­ally, this edi­tion aims to

  • ▪ 引导读者确定一个有意义的主题或问题,然后将其发展成为一个重要的研究问题和项目;
  • ▪  guide its read­ers through the pro­cess of identi­fy­ing a mean­ing­ful topic or ques­tion and then de­vel­op­ing it into a sig­ni­fic­ant re­search prob­lem and pro­ject;
  • ▪ 帮助他们根据研究结果提出丰富而有说服力的论点;
  • ▪  help them make a rich and com­pel­ling ar­gu­ment in­formed by the res­ults of their re­search;
  • ▪ 向他们展示如何以书面或演示文稿的形式有效地表达该论点。
  • ▪  show them how to com­mu­nic­ate that ar­gu­ment ef­fect­ively in writ­ing or in a present­a­tion.

其他指南也涉及这些问题,但本书有所不同。大多数指南都承认,研究人员很少能按部就班地完成从寻找研究项目、开展研究、提出论点,到撰写和修改论文的整个过程。经验丰富的研究人员往往会反复经历这些过程,前进一两步后又会回头,以便再次前进,改变研究方向,同时还要预见尚未开始的阶段。但据我们所知,没有其他指南像本书一样,对研究、论证和交流的过程,以及这些过程之间的相互影响,给予如此均衡的关注。

Other guides ad­dress these mat­ters, but this one is dif­fer­ent. Most ac­know­ledge that re­search­ers rarely move in a straight line from find­ing a pro­ject, to do­ing their re­search, to stat­ing a thesis, and then per­haps to draft­ing and re­vi­sion. Ex­per­i­enced re­search­ers loop back and forth, move for­ward a step or two be­fore go­ing back in or­der to move ahead again, change dir­ec­tions, all the while an­ti­cip­at­ing stages not yet be­gun. But so far as we know, no other guide gives the same bal­anced at­ten­tion to the pro­cesses of re­search, ar­gu­ment­a­tion, and com­mu­nic­a­tion, as well as to how these pro­cesses in­flu­ence each other.

我们对本书的概念框架进行了完善(详见下文),但它仍然非常实用。本书为读者提供了具体明确的启发式方法和建议。

We have sharpened the con­cep­tual frame­work of the book (more on that be­low), but it re­mains em­in­ently prac­tical. It of­fers con­crete and ex­pli­cit heur­ist­ics and ad­vice for

  • ▪ 如何将模糊的兴趣转化为你关心且其他人认为值得提出和解决的问题;
  • ▪  how to turn a vague in­terest into a prob­lem that you care about and that oth­ers will think is worth pos­ing and solv­ing;
  • ▪ 如何开展一项研究项目来解决该问题;
  • ▪  how to de­velop a re­search pro­ject that lets you ad­dress that prob­lem;
  • ▪ 如何构建一个能让听众认真对待的论点;
  • ▪  how to build an ar­gu­ment that your audi­ence will take ser­i­ously;
  • ▪ 如何预见并解决深思熟虑但又挑剔的受访者的保留意见;
  • ▪  how to an­ti­cip­ate and then ad­dress the re­ser­va­tions of thought­ful but crit­ical re­spond­ents;
  • ▪ 如何撰写引言和结论,以回答研究人员面临的最棘手的问题:所以呢
  • ▪  how to cre­ate an in­tro­duc­tion and con­clu­sion that an­swer the toughest ques­tion re­search­ers face: So what?;
  • ▪ 如何像读者一样阅读自己的文章,从而知道何时以及如何修改;
  • ▪  how to read your own writ­ing as read­ers will and thereby know when and how to re­vise it;
  • ▪ 如何不仅以书面形式,而且以演讲或演示形式来阐述研究论点。
  • ▪  how to de­liver a re­search ar­gu­ment not just in writ­ing but also in a talk or present­a­tion.

这一建议基于布斯、科伦布和威廉姆斯所秉持的两项智识和伦理信念,而这两项信念也正是我们所认同的。首先,研究、论证和交流本质上都是群体活动。因此,本书始终强调,研究不仅对研究者本人重要,对其他人也同样重要;研究论证的最终评判标准也不仅仅在于研究者自身。但它们的创造是为了服务于那些接受它们的人。(正如我们一位化学家同事所说:“如果你不分享你的研究成果,你就是在自己的高塔里进行炼金术。”)其次,研究、论证、写作和沟通的技能可以被明确地教授,并且人人都能学习。一些高级研究的方面只能在特定的研究群体中学习,但即使你目前还没有加入任何研究群体,你仍然可以独立地创造类似的环境。我们的最后一章“给教师的建议”就提出了一些方法。

This ad­vice is groun­ded in two in­tel­lec­tual and eth­ical con­vic­tions that mo­tiv­ated Booth, Colomb, and Wil­li­ams and that we also share. The first is that re­search, ar­gu­ment­a­tion, and com­mu­nic­a­tion are in­her­ently com­munal activ­it­ies. The book there­fore em­phas­izes through­out that re­search must mat­ter not just to the re­searcher but to oth­ers, and that re­search ar­gu­ments are ul­ti­mately not just judged by but cre­ated in the ser­vice of those who re­ceive them. (As one of our own col­leagues, a chem­ist, put it, “If you aren’t shar­ing your res­ults, you’re just do­ing al­chemy in your tower.”) The second is that the skills of re­search, ar­gu­ment­a­tion, and writ­ing and com­mu­nic­a­tion can be taught ex­pli­citly and learned by every­one. Some as­pects of ad­vanced re­search can be learned only in the con­text of a spe­cific com­munity of re­search­ers, but even if you don’t yet be­long to one, you can still cre­ate some­thing like it on your own. Our fi­nal chapter, “Ad­vice for Teach­ers,” sug­gests ways to do that.

本版本未涵盖的内容

What This Edition Does Not Address

与前几版《研究的艺术》一样,第五版着重探讨研究的总体框架。本书提供了一个概念框架(如何思考研究、论证和沟通),以及实用建议(如何进行研究构建论证有效地传达这些论证),我们希望无论您目前的专业水平如何,都能帮助您成为更优秀的研究者、思考者和沟通者。本书并未试图涵盖特定领域特有的各​​种研究技巧和众多特殊的书面及口头文体(研究报告、文章、海报、白皮书、灰色文献等等)。这些固然重要,但内容过于庞大,我们无法在此一一详述。同样,虽然本书讨论了指导在线研究的原则,但并未尝试描述目前可通过网络和图书馆获取的各种专业搜索工具和数据库。我们修订后的附录提供了涵盖所有这些问题的资源。

Like the pre­vi­ous edi­tions of The Craft of Re­search, this fifth edi­tion treats re­search gen­er­ally. It of­fers a con­cep­tual frame­work (how to think about re­search, ar­gu­ment­a­tion, and com­mu­nic­a­tion) along with prac­tical ad­vice (how to do re­search, make ar­gu­ments, and com­mu­nic­ate those ar­gu­ments ef­fect­ively) that we hope will help you be­come a bet­ter re­searcher, thinker, and com­mu­nic­ator, whatever your cur­rent level of ex­pert­ise. The book does not at­tempt to cover the di­verse re­search tech­niques and myriad spe­cial writ­ten and oral genres (re­search re­port, art­icle, poster, white pa­per, gray lit­er­at­ure, and on and on) char­ac­ter­istic of par­tic­u­lar fields. They are im­port­ant top­ics, but too large for us to do justice to them here. Like­wise, while the book dis­cusses the prin­ciples that should guide on­line re­search, it does not at­tempt to de­scribe the vast ar­ray of spe­cial­ized search tools and data­bases now avail­able on­line and through the lib­rary. Our re­vised ap­pendix sug­gests re­sources ad­dress­ing all these mat­ters.

本版本新增内容

What’s New in This Edition

熟悉早期版本的读者会发现,本版忠实地保留了本书的初衷、愿景和整体结构。我们保留了其核心内容;其特有的研究、论证和写作方法;以及其独特的风格和个性。尤其值得一提的是,我们努力铭记并保留了本书前几版的精髓,即长期挚友和学术合作者之间为教学服务而进行的生动交流。不仅如此,我们还努力让……这种精神激励着我们自身的工作,让我们设想自己与本书的原作者进行对话,并展开深入的讨论和辩论。我们希望,最终成果与其说是对前几版的背离或突破,不如说是对本书主题和洞见的澄清,同时拓展了其研究和交流的理念,并使其呈现方式焕然一新。

Those fa­mil­iar with earlier edi­tions will find that this edi­tion re­mains faith­ful to the book’s ori­ginal pur­pose, vis­ion, and over­all struc­ture. We have pre­served its cent­ral con­tent; its char­ac­ter­istic ap­proaches to re­search, ar­gu­ment­a­tion, and writ­ing; and its dis­tinct­ive voice and per­son­al­ity. In par­tic­u­lar, we en­deavored to re­mem­ber and re­tain the an­im­at­ing spirit of the book’s pre­vi­ous edi­tions, which is that of lively ex­change among long­time friends and schol­arly col­lab­or­at­ors in the ser­vice of teach­ing. And more than that, we en­deavored to al­low that spirit to mo­tiv­ate our own work, ima­gin­ing ourselves in dia­logue with the book’s ori­ginal au­thors and en­ga­ging in much dis­cus­sion and de­bate between ourselves. The res­ult, we hope, is less a de­par­ture or break from pre­vi­ous edi­tions than it is a cla­ri­fic­a­tion of the book’s themes and in­sights coupled with a broad­en­ing of its con­cep­tions of re­search and com­mu­nic­a­tion and a re­fresh­ing of its present­a­tion.

与此同时,我们也做出了一些重大修改,有些影响全书,有些则针对特定部分和章节。本书原作者的上一版出版于2008年,对于许多关键领域的研究人员而言,那已是截然不同的时代。我们依然将自己视为本书的守护者,而非共同作者,但时间的流逝迫使我们在本书的编排过程中投入比第四版更多的精力。

At the same time, we have made some sig­ni­fic­ant changes, some af­fect­ing the book as a whole and oth­ers spe­cific to par­tic­u­lar parts and chapters. The last edi­tion by the book’s ori­ginal au­thors ap­peared in 2008, a dif­fer­ent era for re­search­ers in many key re­spects. We con­tinue to re­gard ourselves as stew­ards as much as coau­thors, but the simple pas­sage of time has ne­ces­sit­ated that we take a more act­ive hand in shap­ing this edi­tion than we did with the fourth edi­tion.

主要调整包括以下几点:

Ma­jor ad­just­ments in­clude the fol­low­ing:

  • 在编写本版时,我们始终牢记人们从事研究的各种原因以及研究成果的多种用途。本书的优势之一在于它认识到研究、论证和写作之间错综复杂的相互依存关系,并提供了应对这种复杂性的切实可行的建议。然而,正是这种认识也导致之前的版本将某种形式的学术论文视为研究的必然最终结果,视为赋予研究过程意义的产物。在本版中,我们特别强调,有意义的研究并不一定以学术论文的形式呈现,它可以为其他类型的交流提供信息和支持,有时即使不正式地与他人交流,它本身也具有价值。这种转变促使我们对本书中关于研究、论证、写作和交流的论述进行了区分,第一部分和第二部分更侧重于研究,第三部分侧重于论证,第四部分侧重于研究论证的交流。
  • ▪  In pre­par­ing this edi­tion, we re­mained mind­ful of the var­ied reas­ons people en­gage in re­search and of the var­ied uses to which re­search can be put. A strength of the book has al­ways been its re­cog­ni­tion of the com­plex in­ter­de­pend­ence of re­search, ar­gu­ment­a­tion, and writ­ing, along with its sound prac­tical ad­vice for nav­ig­at­ing that com­plex­ity. But this very re­cog­ni­tion also led pre­vi­ous edi­tions to po­s­i­tion some ver­sion of the aca­demic pa­per as the in­ev­it­able and ne­ces­sary end of re­search, as the product that gives that pro­cess mean­ing. In this edi­tion, we have been care­ful to keep in mind that mean­ing­ful re­search need not cul­min­ate in an aca­demic pa­per, that it can in­form and sup­port other kinds of com­mu­nic­a­tions, and that it can some­times be valu­able even when it is not form­ally com­mu­nic­ated to oth­ers. This shift led us to dif­fer­en­ti­ate the book’s treat­ments of re­search, ar­gu­ment­a­tion, and writ­ing and com­mu­nic­a­tion, so that parts I and II fo­cus more de­lib­er­ately on re­search, part III on ar­gu­ment­a­tion, and part IV on com­mu­nic­at­ing re­search ar­gu­ments.
  • 我们更倾向于接受布斯、科伦布和威廉姆斯在哲学上对所谓“基于话语”的知识生产模式的理解——也就是说,知识和理解是在研究群体通过对话进行讨论和探讨的过程中产生的。以及辩论。这也是我们共同秉持的理念。之前的版本有时将研究和写作定义为发现或重现客观“真理”,然后将这些真理“报告”给感兴趣的读者的过程。这种框架的优点在于清晰简洁,我们也承认它对初学者很有用。但它也暗示了一种过于狭隘的研究观念,并回避了一些根本性问题——谁有权定义“真理”?什么才能使论证合理或具有说服力?——这些问题在当今时代变得尤为重要。然而,归根结底,布斯、科伦布和威廉姆斯看似拥抱客观“真理”的理想,与其说是一种真正的学术信念,不如说是一种教学上的自负。正如他们在第一版中所承认的那样,经验丰富的研究者“知道真理总是片面的——既不完整,又带有偏见”,而且“他们提出的任何真理都可能受到质疑,并会被其他同样关心真理的人检验”。在仔细审视了之前的版本并参考了三位作者各自的著作后,我们决定在本版中呈现的研究成果并非是对“真理”的发现和“报告”,而是通过论证来共同追求更深刻的理解。事实上,我们相信布斯、科伦布和威廉姆斯会欣然接受这种对其立场的澄清,认为这对于今天的读者而言是恰当且必要的。
  • ▪  We were more con­sist­ent in ac­cept­ing the im­plic­a­tions of Booth, Colomb, and Wil­li­ams’s philo­soph­ical com­mit­ment to what might be called a “dis­course-based” model of know­ledge pro­duc­tion—that is, to the no­tion that know­ledge and un­der­stand­ing are cre­ated when re­search com­munit­ies hash things out through con­ver­sa­tion and de­bate. This is a com­mit­ment we also share. Pre­vi­ous edi­tions some­times framed re­search and writ­ing as a pro­cess of dis­cov­er­ing or re­cov­er­ing ob­ject­ive “truths” and then “re­port­ing” those truths to an in­ter­ested audi­ence. That fram­ing has the vir­tue of clar­ity and sim­pli­city, and we ac­know­ledge its use­ful­ness for be­gin­ning re­search­ers. But it also im­plies an overly nar­row no­tion of re­search and skirts fun­da­mental ques­tions—Who gets to say what’s “true”? What makes an ar­gu­ment sound or per­suas­ive?—that have ac­quired a heightened im­port in our time. Ul­ti­mately, though, Booth, Colomb, and Wil­li­ams’s seem­ing em­brace of the ideal of ob­ject­ive “truth” is more a ped­ago­gical con­ceit than a genu­ine in­tel­lec­tual con­vic­tion. As they them­selves ac­know­ledged from their first edi­tion, ex­per­i­enced re­search­ers “know that truth is al­ways par­tial—both in­com­plete and par­tisan” and that “whatever truth they of­fer is con­test­able and will be tested by oth­ers” who care in turn. After care­fully con­sid­er­ing pre­vi­ous edi­tions and draw­ing on what we know from the three au­thors’ in­di­vidual writ­ings, we’ve de­cided to present re­search in this edi­tion not as the dis­cov­ery and “re­port­ing” of “truths” but as a col­lect­ive pur­suit of bet­ter un­der­stand­ing through ar­gu­ment­a­tion. In­deed, we be­lieve Booth, Colomb, and Wil­li­ams would have em­braced this cla­ri­fic­a­tion of their stance as ap­pro­pri­ate and ne­ces­sary for today’s read­ers.
  • 同样,在第四版的基础上,我们对研究成果交流的各种文体采取了更广泛、更包容的态度。之前的版本侧重于教授研究“报告”;我们已基本摒弃了这一术语,而是将学术“论文”视为各种基于研究的论证(包括书面和口头形式)的实用范例。同样,这一改变更多的是扩展和澄清,而非偏离。与之前的版本一样,本版也用了大量篇幅和精力来阐述大多数研究型写作文体共有的形式要素,这不仅是因为研究人员需要了解这些要素的表面形式,更是因为这些要素有助于研究人员思考。因此,我们的写作方式会影响我们的论证和研究方式,反之亦然。从这个意义上讲,学习某一领域的文体就是学习该领域本身。因此,在第一部分中,我们……我们基本上避免使用“读者”一词,而改用更通用的“受众”一词;我们仅在专门讨论写作的地方,尤其是在第四部分,才使用“读者”一词。这种用词上的变化并不意味着我们否定了之前版本中“站在读者的角度思考,设身处地地想一想他们会如何评价你的作品”的建议。我们完全同意。我们只是会直接使用“受众”。(我们意识到“受众”这个词可能比“读者”显得更疏远。因此,我们选择使用复数代词“受众”,以强调受众不仅仅是抽象的集合体,而是由一群个体组成的群体,他们虽然构成一个整体,但仍然保留着各自独特的身份和视角。)
  • ▪  Like­wise, build­ing on changes ini­ti­ated in the fourth edi­tion, we’ve ad­op­ted a broader and more in­clus­ive pos­ture to­ward the di­versity of genres through which re­search is com­mu­nic­ated. Pre­vi­ous edi­tions fo­cused on teach­ing the re­search “re­port”; we’ve largely aban­doned that term and in­stead treat the aca­demic “pa­per” as a use­ful pro­to­type for all kinds of re­search-based ar­gu­ments, writ­ten and oral. Again, this change is more ex­pan­sion and cla­ri­fic­a­tion than de­par­ture. Like pre­vi­ous edi­tions, the cur­rent edi­tion de­votes sig­ni­fic­ant space and at­ten­tion to the formal ele­ments com­mon to most genres of re­search-based writ­ing not just be­cause re­search­ers need to un­der­stand their su­per­fi­cial shape but also be­cause these ele­ments help re­search­ers think. How we write thus af­fects how we ar­gue and re­search, and vice versa. In this sense, to learn the genres of one’s field is to learn the field it­self. Con­sequently, in parts I, II, III, and V, we’ve largely es­chewed the term “reader” for the more gen­eral term “audi­ence”; we’ve re­served “reader” for places where we ad­dress writ­ing spe­cific­ally, es­pe­cially in part IV. This change in vocab­u­lary does not mean that we’ve re­jec­ted the ad­vice of pre­vi­ous edi­tions to “side with your read­ers, to ima­gine how they will judge what you have writ­ten.” We en­tirely agree. We’d just say “audi­ence.” (We re­cog­nize that “audi­ence” might feel more re­mote than “read­ers.” So we’ve op­ted to use the plural pro­noun with “audi­ence” to em­phas­ize that audi­ences are not just ab­stract com­pos­ites but also groups of in­di­vidu­als who, while form­ing a col­lect­ive, non­ethe­less re­tain their dis­tinct iden­tit­ies and per­spect­ives.)
  • ▪ 或许最根本的是,除了更加关注人们进行研究的目的的多样性、构成“真理”的视角的多样性以及研究论证传播方式的多样性之外,我们也努力更加关注研究者自身以及本书当代读者的多样性。这种更加细致的关注或许最能体现在我们对书中案例的更新上,这些案例既包括我们自行构建的案例,也包括引用自实践学者著作的段落。
  • ▪  Per­haps most fun­da­ment­ally, in ad­di­tion to be­ing more mind­ful of the di­versity of pur­poses for which people do re­search, the di­versity of per­spect­ives that might con­sti­tute “truth,” and the di­versity of ways in which re­search ar­gu­ments are com­mu­nic­ated, we have also tried to be more mind­ful of the di­versity of re­search­ers them­selves and of the book’s con­tem­por­ary read­ers. This in­creased at­tent­ive­ness is per­haps most evid­ent in our re­fresh­ing of the book’s ex­amples, which in­clude both its con­struc­ted ex­amples and pas­sages quoted from the work of prac­ti­cing schol­ars.

除了这些总体调整之外,我们还进行了一些局部和组织方面的调整:

In ad­di­tion to these gen­eral ad­just­ments, we have made a num­ber of local and or­gan­iz­a­tional changes as well:

  • ▪ 我们将原先的“第一部分:研究、研究人员和读者”简化并转换为新的引言。
  • ▪  We stream­lined and con­ver­ted what was formerly “Part I: Re­search, Re­search­ers, and Read­ers” into a new in­tro­duc­tion.
  • ▪ 我们将原先的“第二部分:提出问题,寻找答案”分为两部分:“第一部分:提出问题,寻找答案”,重点在于概念化研究问题、难题和项目;以及“第二部分:来源和资源”,重点在于使用文本来源和其他材料。
  • ▪  We di­vided what was formerly “Part II: Ask­ing Ques­tions, Find­ing An­swers” into two parts: “Part I: Ask­ing Ques­tions, Seek­ing An­swers,” which fo­cuses on con­cep­tu­al­iz­ing re­search ques­tions, prob­lems, and pro­jects; and “Part II: Sources and Re­sources,” which fo­cuses on work­ing with tex­tual sources and other ma­ter­i­als.
  • ▪ 我们在“第三部分:论证”中强化了论证的处理方式,将论证视为独立于论文和演讲等传播媒介的智力建构。我们还重新调整了本部分的章节顺序,使其不再以论证依据(因为论证的这一要素想必是最难理解的)一章结尾,而是以……结尾。致谢与回应章节(因为这些致谢与回应将一个作为理性或逻辑结构的论点与更广泛的研究社区对话联系起来)。
  • ▪  We sharpened the treat­ment of ar­gu­ment­a­tion in “Part III: Mak­ing Your Ar­gu­ment,” treat­ing ar­gu­ments as in­tel­lec­tual con­struc­tions dis­tinct from the pa­pers and present­a­tions through which they might be com­mu­nic­ated. We also re­ordered the chapters in this part, so that it ends not with the chapter on war­rants (be­cause that ele­ment of ar­gu­ment is, pre­sum­ably, the most dif­fi­cult to grasp) but with the chapter on ac­know­ledg­ments and re­sponses (be­cause those ac­know­ledg­ments and re­sponses are what con­nects an ar­gu­ment as a ra­tional or lo­gical struc­ture to the wider con­ver­sa­tions of a re­search com­munity).
  • ▪ 我们在第四部分末尾添加了一个新章节“研究报告”,并将第四部分重新命名为“阐述你的论点”。
  • ▪  We ad­ded a new chapter, “Re­search Present­a­tions,” to the end of part IV, which we also re­titled “De­liv­er­ing Your Ar­gu­ment.”
  • ▪ 我们在第五部分扩展了对研究伦理的论述,使其不仅强调研究者维护个人诚信,还探讨了研究者对其研究群体和受众的更广泛义务,以及关于伦理研究实践的系统性问题。然而,我们保留了本书最后一章(原为“教师后记”)的论述,使其基本与早期版本保持一致,因为它清晰地反映了本书原作者的观点。
  • ▪  We ex­pan­ded the treat­ment of the eth­ics of re­search in part V, so that in ad­di­tion to ex­hort­ing re­search­ers to main­tain their in­di­vidual in­teg­rity, it also ad­dresses re­search­ers’ broader ob­lig­a­tions to their re­search com­munit­ies and audi­ences as well as sys­temic ques­tions about eth­ical re­search prac­tices. We have, how­ever, al­lowed the ar­gu­ment of the book’s fi­nal chapter, formerly “A Post­script for Teach­ers,” to re­main largely what it was in earlier edi­tions be­cause it so clearly re­flects the per­spect­ives of the book’s ori­ginal au­thors.
  • ▪ 最后,当我们认为这样做可以改进时,我们允许自己对本书的风格和内容进行局部调整。
  • ▪  Fi­nally, we have al­lowed ourselves to make local ad­just­ments to the book’s style and con­tent when we thought it was an im­prove­ment.

介绍

In­tro­duc­tion

你的研究和你的受众

Your Research and Your Audience

成为一名研究员

Becoming a Researcher

提到研究人员,你会想到什么?是身穿白大褂、对着显微镜仔细观察的人?还是独自在图书馆里埋头做笔记的人?这大概是大多数人的印象。但你也可能想象过自己,或许在查找酒店或餐厅的评价,或许在收集数据来论证谁是史上最佳篮球运动员,又或许更严肃地思考你所在地区公立学校的学生是如何受到合格教师短缺的负面影响的。在进行这些论证的过程中,你必须找到准确可靠的信息来源,并且可能还要驳斥错误信息。你或许还不是一名专业的研究人员,但你熟悉所有研究都需要进行的探究和调查活动。

When you think of a re­searcher, what do you ima­gine? Someone in a lab coat peer­ing into a mi­cro­scope? A sol­it­ary fig­ure tak­ing notes in a lib­rary? That’s what most people ima­gine. But you might also have ima­gined your­self, per­haps look­ing up hotel or res­taur­ant re­views or gath­er­ing stat­ist­ics to ar­gue as to who is the best bas­ket­ball player of all time or, more soberly, how stu­dents in your dis­trict’s pub­lic schools are neg­at­ively im­pacted by a short­age of qual­i­fied teach­ers. Along the way to mak­ing those ar­gu­ments, you had to de­term­ine where to find ac­cur­ate and re­li­able in­form­a­tion and might have had to chal­lenge mis­in­form­a­tion. You might not yet be a pro­fes­sional re­searcher, but you are fa­mil­iar with the activ­it­ies of in­quiry and in­vest­ig­a­tion that all re­search re­quires.

你知道,研究需要高度信任信息的准确性和公正性。你也知道,这种情况并非总是如此。我们每个人都需要对每天接收到的信息进行甄别,并能够判断是否应该接受以及为何应该接受呈现在我们面前的众多事实和论断。随着你研究能力的提升,你会逐渐明白,研究依赖于研究者与其受众之间、研究者与研究成果的分享者之间(无论是有意分享还是因为研究成果以我们意想不到的方式传播)的隐性契约。我们进行研究可能仅仅是为了探索未知的乐趣,或者解决难题固然重要,但最终目标是与他人分享我们的研究成果以及从中获得的知识和见解。

You know that re­search re­quires a high de­gree of trust that in­form­a­tion is presen­ted ac­cur­ately and fairly. And you know that this is not al­ways the case. All of us need to be dis­crim­in­at­ing with re­spect to the in­form­a­tion we re­ceive daily and be able to judge whether and why we should ac­cept the mul­ti­tude of facts and claims presen­ted to us. As you grow as a re­searcher, you will learn that re­search de­pends on an im­pli­cit con­tract between re­search­ers and their audi­ences, between those who do re­search and those with whom they share it (whether by in­ten­tion or be­cause re­search cir­cu­lates in ways we don’t an­ti­cip­ate). We may do re­search for the sheer pleas­ure of find­ing things out or solv­ing a puzzle, but the ul­ti­mate goal is to share our re­search—and the know­ledge and in­sight that comes from it—with oth­ers.

本书的核心理念是研究成果应与他人分享。本书的五位作者多年来不断学习如何与不同的群体沟通,每个群体对我们的期望都不尽相同。我们逐渐认识到,研究并非单一的,而是包含诸多方面。即便如此,我们也发现所有研究者都遵循一些共同的原则。本书将分享这些原则。其中一条原则是:研究很少直线进行,它往往曲折蜿蜒,有时甚至会原地打转。为了帮助您清晰理解研究步骤,并更有信心地将各个部分整合起来,我们以一种比实际情况更线性的方式来阐述研究过程。

The idea that re­search is shared with oth­ers is found­a­tional to this book. The five au­thors of this book have learned to ad­dress dif­fer­ent com­munit­ies over time, each of which ex­pec­ted dif­fer­ent things from us. We have learned that re­search is not one thing, but many things. Even so, we have dis­covered that there are prin­ciples that all re­search­ers fol­low. We share these prin­ciples in this book. One of these prin­ciples is that re­search rarely moves in a straight line. It zig­zags and some­times doubles back on it­self. We lay out the re­search pro­cess in a more lin­ear fash­ion than is true to life so that you un­der­stand the steps clearly and learn how to put the parts to­gether with greater con­fid­ence.

致初学者:本书专为你而作。你或许对“研究论文”有所了解,这类论文会引用所谓的外部资料来支撑论点或证实事实。这类学校布置的作业可以帮助你为本书所倡导的真正研究做好准备:这种研究能够拓展研究者及其受众的认知,因为它源于实际存在的问题

To the be­gin­ning re­searcher: This book is writ­ten es­pe­cially for you. You may have some fa­mili­ar­ity with a “re­search pa­per” that uses so-called out­side sources to sup­port ar­gu­ments or sub­stan­ti­ate facts. These kinds of school-based as­sign­ments can pre­pare you for the kind of au­then­tic re­search for which we ad­voc­ate in this book: re­search that ex­pands the un­der­stand­ing of re­search­ers and their audi­ences be­cause it is mo­tiv­ated by ac­tual ques­tions (that is, by ques­tions whose an­swers are not known in ad­vance). We will help you to un­der­stand what your teach­ers are lead­ing you to learn and do when they as­sign such pa­pers and other re­search pro­jects. We hope, in the pro­cess, to re­duce the anxi­ety that can af­flict even ex­per­i­enced re­search­ers.

当我们阅读有关科学突破或世界危机的报道时,我们受益于那些分享研究成果的人,正如他们也受益于其他人的研究一样。当我们走进图书馆,无论是实体图书馆还是虚拟图书馆,我们都能接触到两千五百年来积累的研究成果。当我们在线搜索时,我们可以获取无数的研究资料。许多活动都属于研究的范畴,但我们通常理解的“研究”是指一种特定的定向探究:它始于研究者提出的问题,最终以与感兴趣的受众分享答案而告终。通常,研究成果会以论文或报告的形式呈现。但研究成果也可以通过其他方式分享,例如通过演示文稿、网站或海报。在专业领域,研究是……最终得以发表。然而,如今并非所有已发表的研究成果都能以印刷品或论文的形式面世。

When we read about a sci­entific break­through or a crisis in world af­fairs, we be­ne­fit from the re­search of those who have shared it, as they be­nefited from the re­search of oth­ers. When we go to a lib­rary, phys­ic­ally or vir­tu­ally, we en­counter an ac­cu­mu­lated twenty-five cen­tur­ies of re­search. When we search on­line, we have ac­cess to count­less ma­ter­i­als that are the product of re­search. Many activ­it­ies fall un­der the head­ing of re­search, but we un­der­stand this term to mean a par­tic­u­lar kind of dir­ec­ted in­quiry: one that be­gins with a ques­tion on the part of the re­searcher and ends with shar­ing the an­swer with an in­ter­ested audi­ence. Typ­ic­ally, re­search is writ­ten up in a pa­per or re­port of some kind. But re­search can also be shared in other ways, in­clud­ing through a present­a­tion, web­site, or poster. In pro­fes­sional con­texts, re­search is ul­ti­mately pub­lished. Today, how­ever, not all pub­lished re­search finds its way into print or ap­pears in the form of a pa­per.

I.1  什么是研究?

I.1  What Is Re­search?

从广义上讲,我们收集信息来回答问题、解决问题时,就是在进行研究:

In the broad­est terms, we do re­search whenever we gather in­form­a­tion to an­swer a ques­tion that solves a prob­lem:

  • 问题:你想知道哪里能吃到好吃的披萨。
  • PROB­LEM: You want to know a good place for pizza.
  • 调查研究:你询问几个朋友他们喜欢去哪里。
  • RE­SEARCH: You ask sev­eral friends where they like to go.
  • 问题:为了完成一个赌约,你需要查出勒布朗·詹姆斯的出生日期。
  • PROB­LEM: To settle a bet, you need to find out when LeBron James was born.
  • 研究:你在谷歌上搜索“勒布朗·詹姆斯生日”。
  • RE­SEARCH: You google “LeBron James birth­day.”
  • 问题:你正在寻找适合在海滩上阅读的新书。
  • PROB­LEM: You are look­ing for new books to read at the beach.
  • 研究方法:你向生成式人工智能工具寻求建议,然后在网上查看这些建议。
  • RE­SEARCH: You ask a gen­er­at­ive AI tool for sug­ges­tions and check them out on­line.

我们每天都在进行这类实践性研究,尽管我们很少将其展示或撰写出来。然而,我们仍然依赖他人的知识或他人开发的工具来寻找解决问题所需的答案。

We all do that kind of prac­tical re­search every day, al­though we rarely present it or write it up. Still, we rely on the know­ledge of oth­ers or on tools oth­ers have cre­ated to find the an­swers we need to solve our prob­lems.

如果你准备做研究项目并非出于自愿,而是因为被布置了任务,你可能会觉得这只是无意义的作业,把它当作空洞的练习。我们希望你不要这样想。如果做得好,你的项目将让你加入人类最古老、最受推崇的对话——这场对话已经持续了数千年,参与者包括哲学家、工程师、生物学家、社会科学家、历史学家、文学评论家、语言学家和神学家,更不用说首席执行官、律师、营销人员、投资经理、政治家和活动家——名单不胜枚举——他们都在努力解答疑问、解决问题,并最终创造一个更美好、更公正的世界。

If you’re pre­par­ing to do a re­search pro­ject not be­cause you want to but be­cause it has been as­signed, you might think that it is just make-work and treat it as an empty ex­er­cise. We hope you won’t. Done well, your pro­ject pre­pares you to join the old­est and most es­teemed of hu­man con­ver­sa­tions, one con­duc­ted for mil­len­nia among philo­soph­ers, en­gin­eers, bio­lo­gists, so­cial sci­ent­ists, his­tor­i­ans, lit­er­ary crit­ics, lin­guists, and theo­lo­gians, not to men­tion CEOs, law­yers, mar­keters, in­vest­ment man­agers, politi­cians, and act­iv­ists—the list is end­less—as they all strive to an­swer their ques­tions, solve their prob­lems, and ideally cre­ate a bet­ter and more just world for all.

如果你是初学者,现在你可能会觉得对话是单方面的,你只能听,不能说,因为你没什么可贡献的。如果你是学生,你可能会觉得你只有一个读者:你的老师。这些想法或许在当下都是正确的。但总有一天,你会加入到一场对话中,这场对话在最好的情况下,它能帮助我们所有人摆脱无知、偏见,以及那些骗子和庸医试图强加给我们的不成熟观念。也许不是今天或明天,但总有一天,你的研究和论证即便不能改变整个世界,至少也能改善你所在的那片区域。

Right now, if you are a be­gin­ner, you may feel that the con­ver­sa­tion is one-sided, that you have to listen more than you can speak be­cause you have little to con­trib­ute. If you are a stu­dent, you may feel that you have only one reader: your teacher. All that may be true, for the mo­ment. But at some point, you will join a con­ver­sa­tion that, at its best, can help to lib­er­ate all of us from ig­nor­ance, pre­ju­dice, and the half-baked ideas that so many frauds and quacks try to im­pose on us. Maybe not today or to­mor­row but one day, the re­search you do and the ar­gu­ments you make could im­prove if not the whole world, then at least your corner of it.

I.2  与受众建立联系

I.2  Con­nect­ing with Your Audi­ence

无论采取何种形式,研究都依赖于研究者与其受众之间的关系。我们所做的大多数重要事情都是与他人合作完成的,研究也不例外。当你阅读书籍或科学论文,或在线观看演示或讲座时,你实际上是在与创作者进行无声的交流——并通过他们与所有研究过、阅读过他们作品的人进行交流。当你通过写作或其他方式分享你的研究成果时,你就发出了自己的声音,并可以期待他人的回应。如此循环往复。

Whatever form it takes, re­search de­pends on a re­la­tion­ship between re­search­ers and their audi­ences. Most of the im­port­ant things we do, we do with oth­ers. Re­search is no dif­fer­ent. When you read a book or a sci­entific pa­per, or view a present­a­tion or lec­ture on­line, you si­lently con­verse with its cre­at­ors—and through them with every­one else they have stud­ied and read. And when you share your re­search, through writ­ing or other means, you add your voice and can hope that oth­ers will re­spond to you. And so it goes.

对我们而言,沟通即对话的理念至关重要。我们指的是,沟通最好被理解为一种社会活动,其中作者、演讲者、报告者及其受众都扮演着各自的角色。在这场对话中,我们是否平等相待,礼貌地发言和倾听?我们是否假定只有一方是专家?写作尤其如此,它是一种通过文本进行的想象对话,任何误解都无法实时纠正。因此,在写作中,谨慎选择我们各自的角色尤为重要。请思考以下两句话:

For us, the idea that com­mu­nic­a­tion is a con­ver­sa­tion is cru­cial. We mean by it that com­mu­nic­a­tion is best un­der­stood as a so­cial activ­ity in which writers, speak­ers, and presenters and their audi­ences each play a part. In this con­ver­sa­tion, do we treat each other as equals, speak­ing and listen­ing civilly? Do we as­sume that only one of us is an ex­pert? Writ­ing in par­tic­u­lar is a kind of ima­gined con­ver­sa­tion con­duc­ted through text, where any mis­un­der­stand­ing can­not be re­paired in real time. There­fore, in writ­ing es­pe­cially, it is im­port­ant to choose our roles care­fully. Con­sider these two sen­tences:

研究表明,快速眼动睡眠中断不仅会抑制记忆巩固,尤其是陈述性记忆的巩固,而且还会显著损害依赖于工作记忆功能的认知过程。

如果睡眠不足,不仅难以记住事实和概念,而且工作记忆功能也会受损,导致难以记住信息,进而难以理解、思考和学习。

In­ter­rup­tion of REM sleep has been shown not only to in­hibit memory con­sol­id­a­tion, es­pe­cially for de­clar­at­ive memor­ies, but also to sig­ni­fic­antly im­pair cog­nit­ive pro­cesses de­pend­ent on work­ing memory func­tion.

If you don’t get enough sleep, not only will you struggle to re­tain facts and con­cepts, but your work­ing memory func­tion will also be im­paired, mak­ing it dif­fi­cult for you to hold in­form­a­tion in mind and con­sequently to un­der­stand, think, and learn.

每一句话都反映了作者对读者需求和目标的判断。第一句话可能摘自一本高级教科书。第一篇文章面向对睡眠和记忆心理学感兴趣的专业人士,侧重于抽象概念,并使用了一些专业术语。第二篇文章则像是学习习惯指南,出自一位专家之口,他耐心地向对此知之甚少的读者解释复杂的问题,并且尽量避免使用专业词汇。读者需要的是实用建议,因此文章直接以“你”来称呼读者。

Each sen­tence re­flects judg­ments by its writer about the read­ers’ needs and goals. The first could be an ex­cerpt from an ad­vanced text­book. It is ad­dressed to know­ledge­able col­leagues in­ter­ested in learn­ing about the psy­cho­logy of sleep and memory, is fo­cused on ab­stract con­cepts, and uses tech­nical terms. The second could have come from a guide­book on good study habits. It is the voice of an ex­pert pa­tiently ex­plain­ing a com­plic­ated mat­ter to read­ers who know little about it and largely avoids tech­nical vocab­u­lary. The reader wants prac­tical ad­vice and is ad­dressed dir­ectly as “you.”

尽管两句话各有不同,但如果作者对读者的判断正确,它们都能起到作用。但如果第一句话是写给那些寻求实用建议的人,他们会觉得作者对他们的需求漠不关心;同样,如果第二句话是写给更高级的读者,他们可能会觉得作者是在居高临下地跟他们说话。因此,在动笔之前,思考你的读者——你可以为不止一个读者写作——以及你与他们之间的关系至关重要。同样的原则也适用于你以口头或其他形式展示研究成果的情况。

Des­pite their dif­fer­ences, both sen­tences would be ef­fect­ive if their writers had judged their read­ers cor­rectly. But if that first sen­tence was presen­ted to those seek­ing prac­tical ad­vice, they would find the writer in­dif­fer­ent to their needs; like­wise, if that second sen­tence was presen­ted to more ad­vanced read­ers, they might think its writer was talk­ing down to them. That’s why it is im­port­ant to think about your read­ers—you can write for more than one—and your roles in re­la­tion to them be­fore you write a word. This same prin­ciple ap­plies if you are present­ing your re­search or­ally or in some other form.

在撰写本书时,我们设想了一个读者形象,一个我们希望您能扮演的角色:一个对学习如何开展和分享研究感兴趣,并认同研究重要性(或至少愿意被说服)的人。然后,我们也设想了我们自己的形象:我们是致力于研究价值的作者,热衷于分享研究方法,我们不会像讲师那样对您说教,也不会居高临下对待您,而是我们希望您成为的那种“您”的身份与您交流。我们力求让本书既能轻松易懂地与刚刚开始第一个研究项目的读者交流,也能与正在进行高级研究的读者交流。我们希望,当新晋研究人员遇到他们尚未遇到的问题时,不会感到沮丧;也希望经验丰富的读者在我们回顾一些熟悉的内容时能够保持耐心。最终,只有您才能评判我们是否成功。

In writ­ing this book, we ima­gined a per­sona for you, a role we hoped you would ad­opt: someone who is in­ter­ested in learn­ing how to do and share re­search and who shares our be­lief in its im­port­ance (or at least is open to be­ing per­suaded). Then we ima­gined a per­sona of our own: writers com­mit­ted to the value of re­search, in­ter­ested in shar­ing how it works, talk­ing not at you like a lec­turer or down to you but with the “you” we hoped you want to be­come. We tried to speak as eas­ily to those of you start­ing your first pro­ject as to those do­ing ad­vanced work. We hoped that new re­search­ers would not be frus­trated when we dis­cussed is­sues they haven’t yet faced and that more ex­per­i­enced read­ers of our book would be pa­tient as we covered fa­mil­iar ground. Only you can judge how well we’ve suc­ceeded.

I.3  了解你的角色

I.3  Un­der­stand­ing Your Role

许多初级研究者误解了自己作为作者或演讲者的角色。他们与听众之间建立的关系,如同糟糕的课堂教学:老师,我懂得比您少,所以我的任务是向您展示我能挖掘出多少事实。您的任务是评判我找到的事实是否足够让我获得高分。在真正的研究中,学生和老师的角色是颠倒的。你学习并分享一些别人学不到的东西。未必了解。因此,当你分享研究成果时,你必须将受众视为一群并不了解你所掌握的知识,但却需要了解的人,即使他们自己尚未意识到这种需要。此外,你必须把自己视为不仅是事实或信息的传递者,更是要为受众提供一个值得关注的理由。你必须设想一种超越“以下是我挖掘到的一些关于十四世纪西藏织造的资料”的关系。分享我们的研究成果还有更好的理由。

Many be­gin­ning re­search­ers mis­un­der­stand their role as writers or presenters. They of­fer their audi­ence a re­la­tion­ship that ca­ri­ca­tures a bad classroom: Teacher, I know less than you, so my role is to show you how many facts I can dig up. Yours is to say whether I have found enough to earn a good grade. In au­then­tic re­search, the roles of stu­dent and teacher are re­versed. You learn and share some­thing that oth­ers do not ne­ces­sar­ily know. So when you share your re­search, you must think of your audi­ence as made up of people who don’t know what you know but need to, even if they don’t yet real­ize that need them­selves. Fur­ther, you must think of your­self as someone who is not just de­liv­er­ing facts or in­form­a­tion but also of­fer­ing your audi­ence a reason to care. You must ima­gine a re­la­tion­ship that goes bey­ond Here are some facts I’ve dug up about four­teenth-cen­tury Tibetan weav­ing. There are bet­ter reas­ons to share our re­search.

I.3.1  我发现了一些新的、有趣的信息

I.3.1  I Have Found Some New and In­ter­est­ing In­form­a­tion

当你对读者说: “这里有一些关于十四世纪西藏织造的知识,你可能不知道,但或许会感兴趣。”时,你就迈出了真正研究的第一步。当然,这假设他们有兴趣了解。但即便他们没有兴趣,你也必须把自己塑造成一个发现了他们感兴趣的内容的人,并让他们觉得他们渴望了解。将来,当你写作时,人们会期望你找到(或创建一个)一个研究社群,这个社群不仅对你的主题感兴趣(或者可以被说服感兴趣),而且还会提出一些你可以解答的问题。但即便你现在还没有这样的社群,你也必须像已经拥有这样的社群一样写作。你必须展现出你对分享新知识的兴趣,甚至热情,因为你对作品的兴趣程度大致可以预测读者对它的兴趣。

You take the first step to­ward au­then­tic re­search when you say to your audi­ence, Here are some facts about four­teenth-cen­tury Tibetan weav­ing that you do not know and may find in­ter­est­ing. This of­fer as­sumes, of course, that they want to know. But even if not, you must still cast your­self in the role of someone who has found some­thing they will find in­ter­est­ing and cast them as people who want to know. Down the road, when you write, you will be ex­pec­ted to find (or cre­ate) a re­search com­munity that not only shares an in­terest in your topic (or can be con­vinced to) but also has ques­tions about it that you can an­swer. But even if you don’t have that com­munity right now, you must write as if you do. You must present your­self as in­ter­ested in, even en­thu­si­astic about, want­ing to share some­thing new, be­cause the in­terest you show in your work roughly pre­dicts the in­terest your audi­ence will take in it.

I.3.2  我找到了一个实际问题的解决方案

I.3.2  I Have Found a Solu­tion to a Prac­tical Prob­lem

当你能够向受众传达的信息不仅仅是“这里有一些你们可能会感兴趣的事实”,而是“这些事实将帮助你们解决自己关心的问题”时,你就朝着更有意义的研究迈出了一步。人们每天都在商业、政府以及许多其他工作和行业中进行这类研究。他们面对着各种实际问题,而这些问题的解决方案首先需要通过研究来理解问题,然后再去解决——这些问题涵盖了从失眠到利润下滑,从交通拥堵到恐怖主义等方方面面。

You take a step to­ward more sig­ni­fic­ant re­search when you can say to an audi­ence not just Here are some facts that should in­terest you, but also These facts will help you do some­thing to solve a prob­lem you care about. People do this kind of re­search every day in busi­ness, gov­ern­ment, and many jobs and pro­fes­sions. They con­front prac­tical prob­lems whose solu­tions re­quire re­search first to un­der­stand the prob­lem, then to solve it—prob­lems ran­ging from in­som­nia to fall­ing profits to traffic to ter­ror­ism.

为了帮助新晋研究人员了解这一角色,教师有时会采用基于问题的学习方法,探讨“现实世界”的情境。例如:一位环境科学教授可能会布置你为州环境保护局局长撰写一份关于如何清理当地湖泊的报告。在这种情况下,你扮演的是一位专业人士的角色,为需要帮助的人提供切实可行的建议。为了使你的报告具有说服力,你必须使用正确的术语,引用正确的资料来源,并找到并呈现正确的证据,所有这些都必须以正确的格式呈现。但最重要的是,你必须围绕一个明确的目标来设计你的报告,这个目标定义了你的角色:为决策者提供解决问题的建议。

To help new re­search­ers learn that role, teach­ers some­times use prob­lem-based learn­ing ad­dress­ing “real-world” scen­arios. For ex­ample, an en­vir­on­mental sci­ence pro­fessor might as­sign you to write a re­port for the dir­ector of the state En­vir­on­mental Pro­tec­tion Agency on how to clean up a local lake. In this scen­ario, you play the role of a pro­fes­sional giv­ing prac­tical ad­vice to someone who needs it. To make your re­port cred­ible, you must use the right ter­min­o­logy, cite the right sources, and find and present the right evid­ence, all in the right format. But most im­port­ant, you have to design your re­port around a spe­cific in­ten­tion that defines your role: to ad­vise a de­cision maker on what to do to solve a prob­lem.

I.3.3  我找到了一个重要问题的答案

I.3.3  I Have Found an An­swer to an Im­port­ant Ques­tion

尽管学术研究人员有时也会进行这类实用研究,但他们更常见的角色是帮助各自的研究群体更好地理解某些事物。有些人可能会利用他们的发现来解决实际问题——例如,关于素数分布的发现帮助密码学家设计了一种无法破解的密码。但这类研究本身的目的并非解决更好地保护秘密的实际问题,而是更好地理解素数的概念性问题(我们将在第二章更详细地讨论这两种问题)。一些研究人员将这类研究称为“纯粹研究”,以区别于“应用研究”。

Al­though aca­demic re­search­ers some­times do that sort of prac­tical re­search, their more com­mon role is simply to help their re­search com­munit­ies bet­ter un­der­stand some­thing. Oth­ers might use their find­ings to solve prac­tical prob­lems—a dis­cov­ery about the dis­tri­bu­tion of prime num­bers, for ex­ample, helped crypto­lo­gists design an un­break­able code. But that re­search it­self aimed at solv­ing not the prac­tical prob­lem of bet­ter pro­tect­ing secrets but the con­cep­tual prob­lem of bet­ter un­der­stand­ing prime num­bers (we dis­cuss these two kinds of prob­lems in more de­tail in chapter 2). Some re­search­ers call this kind of re­search “pure” as op­posed to “ap­plied.”

教师有时会虚构一些涉及概念性问题的“真实世界”情境:比如,一位政治学教授会让你扮演参议员的实习生,研究外州大学生的投票习惯。但更常见的情况是,他们希望你把自己想象成你正在学习的角色:一位研究者,面向一群其他研究者——你的主要受众——讲解他们想要深入了解的问题。例如,你对十四世纪西藏织造的研究或许能帮助地毯设计师卖出更多地毯,但其主要目的是帮助学者更好地理解西藏艺术,例如:十四世纪西藏地毯如何影响了近代中国的艺术?

Teach­ers oc­ca­sion­ally in­vent “real-world” scen­arios in­volving con­cep­tual prob­lems: a polit­ical sci­ence pro­fessor asks you to play the role of a sen­ator’s in­tern re­search­ing the vot­ing habits of out-of-state col­lege stu­dents. But more typ­ic­ally they ex­pect you to ima­gine your­self as what you are learn­ing to be: a re­searcher ad­dress­ing a com­munity of other re­search­ers—your primary audi­ence—in­ter­ested in is­sues that they want to un­der­stand bet­ter. Your re­search on four­teenth-cen­tury Tibetan weav­ing, for ex­ample, could pos­sibly help rug de­sign­ers sell more rugs, but its main aim is to help schol­ars bet­ter un­der­stand some­thing about Tibetan art, such as How did four­teenth-cen­tury Tibetan rugs in­flu­ence the art of mod­ern China?

I.4  设想你的听众的角色

I.4  Ima­gin­ing the Role of Your Audi­ence

当你扮演以下三种角色之一时,你就与受众建立了关系:我有信息要提供;我可以提供帮助 你解决了一个问题;我则能帮助你更好地理解某些东西。但是,你必须让你的听众扮演一个互补的角色:你扮演好你的角色,我也会扮演好我的角色。这意味着你必须理解他们的角色。如果你让他们扮演一个他们无法接受的角色,你可能会彻底失去他们。你必须以一种能够激励听众扮演你为他们设想的角色的方式来分享你的研究成果。

You es­tab­lish your side of the re­la­tion­ship with your audi­ence when you ad­opt one of those three roles: I have in­form­a­tion for you; I can help you fix a prob­lem; I can help you un­der­stand some­thing bet­ter. You must, how­ever, cast your audi­ence in a com­ple­ment­ary role: I will play my part if you play yours. That means you have to un­der­stand their role. If you cast them in a role they won’t ac­cept, you can lose them en­tirely. You must share your re­search in a way that mo­tiv­ates your audi­ence to play the role you have ima­gined for them.

例如,假设你是一位华夫饼专家。你受邀与三个不同的群体分享你的研究成果,每个群体想要了解你的研究目的各不相同。他们如何看待你的分享,取决于你对每个群体意图扮演的角色理解得是否准确,以及你自身角色与他们角色的匹配程度。为此,你必须了解他们的需求,以及他们愿意且能够为你提供哪些回报。

For ex­ample, sup­pose you are an ex­pert on waffles. You have been asked to share your re­search with three dif­fer­ent groups, each with dif­fer­ent reas­ons for want­ing to hear about it. How they re­ceive you will de­pend on how ac­cur­ately you ima­gine the role each in­tends to play and how well you match your role to theirs. For that, you must un­der­stand what they want and what they are will­ing and able to do for you in re­turn.

I.4.1  娱乐我

I.4.1  En­ter­tain Me

想象一下,第一个邀请你演讲的团体是当地的华夫饼爱好者协会。他们的成员虽然不是专家,但对华夫饼却了如指掌。他们阅读有关华夫饼的书籍,经常光顾华夫饼专卖店,还收集各种华夫饼主题的新奇玩意儿。你决定分享一些新发现,以及一些食谱,这些都来自你曾祖母在20世纪30年代祖父母从比利时移民时写给他们的一封信。

Ima­gine that the first group that in­vited you to speak is the local chapter of the Waffle Lov­ers So­ci­ety. Its mem­bers are not ex­perts, but they know a lot about waffles. They read about waffles, fre­quent res­taur­ants that spe­cial­ize in waffles, and col­lect a range of waffle-themed nov­el­ties. You de­cide to share some new facts, along with some re­cipes, that you have found in a let­ter from your great-grand­mother writ­ten to your grand­par­ents when they emig­rated from Bel­gium in the 1930s.

在准备演讲时,你认为这不过是一场轻松愉快的华夫饼故事分享会。你履行了你的承诺,分享任何你认为可能引起大家兴趣的内容,包括你的直觉和推测。你可能会分享一张你最近发现的信件截图,但你不会引用任何学术文献来佐证你的说法。你的听众会认真聆听,提出问题,或许还会分享他们自己的轶事。你并不指望他们质疑信件的真实性,或者质疑信件或食谱与华夫饼的社会历史,更遑论北欧饮食文化之间的关联。你的任务是奉献一场引人入胜的演讲;他们的任务是友好地参与其中。

In plan­ning your talk, you judge that what’s at stake is just a di­vert­ing hour of waffle lore. You meet your side of the bar­gain when you share whatever you think might in­terest the group, in­clud­ing hunches and spec­u­la­tion. You might share a screen­shot of your re­cently dis­covered let­ter, but you won’t cite schol­arly sources to sub­stan­ti­ate any claims. Your audi­ence mem­bers will play their role by listen­ing with in­terest, ask­ing ques­tions, maybe shar­ing their own an­ec­dotes. You don’t ex­pect them to chal­lenge the au­then­ti­city of the let­ter or ques­tion how the let­ter or re­cipes are rel­ev­ant to the so­cial his­tory of waffles, much less of north­ern European food­ways. Your job is to give an en­ga­ging talk; theirs is to be ami­ably en­gaged.

一些初级研究者想象他们的受众就像“华夫饼爱好者协会”一样,已经对他们的研究主题着迷,并渴望了解任何相关新内容。虽然这种想法有时确实有效。对于拥有合适受众的专家来说,这种方法很少适用于正在学习如何进行和分享真实研究的学生。你的老师不仅希望你分享你的发现,还希望你展示你能如何运用这些发现,或者为什么它们具有重要意义。

Some be­gin­ning re­search­ers ima­gine their audi­ence is like this Waffle Lov­ers So­ci­ety, already fas­cin­ated by their topic and eager to hear any­thing new about it. While that per­spect­ive some­times works for ex­perts with the right audi­ence, it rarely works for stu­dents learn­ing to do and share au­then­tic re­search. Your teach­ers will ex­pect you not just to share what you find but also to show what you can do with it or why it is sig­ni­fic­ant.

I.4.2  请帮我解决我的实际问题

I.4.2  Help Me Solve My Prac­tical Prob­lem

想象一下,你的下一场会议是与一家电影公司进行的。他们计划拍摄一部以20世纪30年代比利时乡村为背景的历史重现电影,并希望你能帮忙确保历史细节的准确性,其中包括一个农舍厨房的场景。他们想知道厨房的物品摆放情况、烹饪用具的样式等等。他们并不在意你提供的信息是否新颖,只关心信息的准确性,以便他们能够营造出真实可信的场景。你向他们展示了你的信件和食谱,并描述了那个年代华夫饼的制作方法。要胜任这项工作,你必须帮助他们解决一个实际问题,而你的解决方案并非基于你能找到的所有信息(无论多么新颖),而是基于那些与真实性问题相关的、且来源可靠的特定事实。你的听众会认真聆听并进行批判性思考,因为他们希望确保细节的准确性。

Ima­gine that your next meet­ing is with a film com­pany. They plan to make a his­tor­ical reen­act­ment film set in rural Bel­gium in the 1930s and want your help to get the his­tor­ical de­tails right, in­clud­ing a scene in a farm­house kit­chen. They want to know how the kit­chen was stocked, what the cook­ing im­ple­ments looked like, and so on. They don’t care whether your facts are new, only whether they are right, so that they can make the scene au­then­tic. You show them your let­ter and re­cipes and de­scribe how waffles were pre­pared in that era. To suc­ceed in this role, you must help them solve a prac­tical prob­lem whose solu­tion you base not on all the in­form­a­tion you can find, no mat­ter how new, but just on those par­tic­u­lar facts that are rel­ev­ant to the prob­lem of au­then­ti­city and whose sources you can show are re­li­able. Your audi­ence will listen in­tently and crit­ic­ally be­cause they want to get the de­tails right.

如果你的老师布置了一个“现实世界”的作业,你很可能会遇到这样的任务:给一位需要处理湖泊污染问题的环保署官员写信。学术研究人员有时也会研究这类实际问题,但正如我们所说,他们通常研究的是概念性问题。所以,只有当你的老师布置了实际问题时,你才应该提出并解决它;否则,在开始之前,请先询问你的计划是否合适。

This is the kind of task you are likely to face if your teacher in­vents a “real-world” as­sign­ment: write to an EPA of­fi­cial who needs to do some­thing about a pol­luted lake. Aca­demic re­search­ers some­times ad­dress prac­tical prob­lems like these, but as we said, they typ­ic­ally ad­dress con­cep­tual ones. So pose and ad­dress a prac­tical prob­lem only if your teacher cre­ates one; oth­er­wise, ask whether your plan is ap­pro­pri­ate be­fore you be­gin.

I.4.3  帮我更好地理解某些内容

I.4.3  Help Me Un­der­stand Some­thing Bet­ter

现在想象一下,你的听众是库克大学烹饪文化系的教职员工。他们很可能与你有着共同的兴趣。他们研究食物历史和传统的方方面面,并参与关于其社会、文化和政治意义的国际讨论。他们通过学术期刊和书籍,与其他食物研究学者竞争,力求对他们所关注的主题进行更深入的阐述。通过这种方式,他们也携手合作,共同推动各自研究领域的发展。

Now ima­gine that your audi­ence is the fac­ulty of Cook Uni­ver­sity’s De­part­ment of Culin­ary Cul­tures. This is the audi­ence most likely to share your in­terest. They study all as­pects of food his­tory and tra­di­tions and par­ti­cip­ate in in­ter­na­tional dis­cus­sions about their so­cial, cul­tural, and polit­ical sig­ni­fic­ance. Through aca­demic journ­als and books, they com­pete with other food stud­ies schol­ars to pro­duce richer ac­counts of the top­ics they care about. In this way, they also co­oper­ate to ad­vance their field of study.

这些学者邀请您来谈谈您的专长:二十世纪上半叶的食物社会史。他们并非仅仅希望您用一些新奇的史料来逗他们开心(当然,如果您能做到,他们也会很高兴),或者帮他们做点什么(比如获得电影咨询的工作)。他们希望您运用所掌握的最新史料和信息,帮助他们更好地理解华夫饼的社会史,或者更广泛地说,理解二战前欧洲各地饮食文化的社会史。

These schol­ars have in­vited you to talk about your spe­cialty: the so­cial his­tory of food in the first half of the twen­ti­eth cen­tury. They don’t want you just to amuse them with new facts (though they will be happy if you do) or to help them do some­thing (like get a con­sult­ing gig on a film). They want you to use whatever new facts and in­form­a­tion you have to help them bet­ter un­der­stand the so­cial his­tory of waffles or, more gen­er­ally, of re­gional European food­ways prior to World War II.

因为这些学者致力于尽可能深入、准确地理解过去,所以他们希望你思考严谨,并从各个角度审视问题。如果你的论证不够严谨或不够正确,他们会质疑你的推理,并就事实提出挑战。他们会很高兴看到你曾祖母最近发现的信件和食谱,但他们会希望你验证其真实性,并证实你对其意义的任何论断。如果你能让他们意识到,他们对华夫饼的社会历史了解得并不像他们想象的那样透彻,并且出乎意料地发现还有更多值得探索的内容,他们会格外乐于接受。如果你做不到这一点,他们的回应不会是“我不同意”(我们最终都会学会接受这一点),而是会给出更令人沮丧的回答:“我不在乎。”

Be­cause these schol­ars are com­mit­ted to un­der­stand­ing the past as deeply and ac­cur­ately as pos­sible, they ex­pect you to be care­ful in your think­ing and to ex­am­ine is­sues from all sides. They will ques­tion your reas­on­ing and chal­lenge you on the facts if they think you are any­thing less than rig­or­ous or cor­rect. They will be happy to see the re­cently dis­covered let­ter and re­cipes from your great-grand­mother, but they will ex­pect you to verify their au­then­ti­city and to sub­stan­ti­ate any claims you make about their sig­ni­fic­ance. They will be es­pe­cially re­cept­ive if you can con­vince them that they do not un­der­stand the so­cial his­tory of waffles as fully as they thought they did and, un­ex­pec­tedly, that there is some­thing more to know. If you can’t do that, they’ll re­spond not with I don’t agree—we all learn to live with that—but with a re­sponse far more dev­ast­at­ing: I don’t care.

你开始演讲:

You be­gin your present­a­tion:

我们知道华夫饼在欧洲美食中有着悠久的历史,尤其与比利时联系紧密。我们也知道,现代华夫饼可以是圆形的,也可以是长方形的,这取决于制作华夫饼所用的铸铁模具。然而,我们之前并未充分意识到的是,华夫饼的形状曾经具有社会乃至政治意义。在比利时农村地区,人们一直抵制长方形华夫饼,直到20世纪,这被视为民族认同的象征。长方形华夫饼被认为是荷兰的象征,而圆形华夫饼则被认为是地道的弗拉芒风味。最近,一位远房表亲与我分享了一封信,信中揭示了……

We know that the waffle has a long his­tory in European cuisine, even as it is as­so­ci­ated with Bel­gium. We know that the mod­ern waffle can be either round or rect­an­gu­lar, de­pend­ing on the cast-iron molds pro­duced for their pre­par­a­tion. What we did not fully real­ize, how­ever, was that a waffle’s shape once had so­cial and even polit­ical sig­ni­fic­ance. Res­ist­ance to rect­an­gu­lar waffles per­sisted well into the twen­ti­eth cen­tury through­out rural Bel­gium as a marker of na­tional iden­tity, with the rect­an­gu­lar waffle be­ing as­so­ci­ated with the Dutch and the round waffle deemed au­then­tic­ally Flem­ish. A re­cently dis­covered let­ter shared with me by a dis­tant cousin re­veals . . .

当你与学者群体分享研究成果时,就会参与到这类对话中。你和他们都希望更深入地理解某些事物,并非仅仅为了娱乐或盈利,而是因为发现和分享新知识本身就充满意义。

This is the kind of con­ver­sa­tion you join when you share re­search with a com­munity of schol­ars. You and they want to un­der­stand some­thing bet­ter, not strictly for en­ter­tain­ment or profit but be­cause dis­cov­er­ing and shar­ing new know­ledge is in­ter­est­ing on its own terms.

学术界的听众几乎总是会扮演这第三种角色。只有当你把他们当作他们自认为的那种人来对待时,他们才会认为你履行了社会契约:他们是追求更广知识、更深刻理解的学者。诚然,化学或哲学系的教授们对华夫饼的社会历史并不关心。但你也同样不太关心他们的问题。你关心的是你所在的学者或研究人员群体,他们的兴趣和期望,以及如何基于你能找到的最佳证据增进他们的理解。

Aca­demic audi­ences will al­most al­ways ad­opt this third role. They will think you’ve ful­filled your side of the so­cial con­tract only when you treat them as who they think they are: schol­ars in­ter­ested in greater know­ledge and bet­ter un­der­stand­ing. To be sure, the fac­ulty over in chem­istry or philo­sophy care little about the so­cial his­tory of waffles. But then you don’t much care about their is­sues, either. You are con­cerned with your par­tic­u­lar com­munity of schol­ars or re­search­ers, with their in­terests and ex­pect­a­tions, with im­prov­ing their un­der­stand­ing, based on the best evid­ence you can find.

1.5  如何使用本书

I.5  How to Use This Book

应对研究的复杂性(以及由此带来的焦虑)的最佳方法是阅读本书两遍。首先快速浏览,了解接下来的内容(跳过那些枯燥或令人困惑的部分)。然后,在开始工作时,仔细阅读与你当前任务相关的章节。如果你是研究新手,请从头开始阅读。如果你正在进行中级课程,但尚未完全掌握你的研究领域,请快速浏览第一部分和第二部分,然后集中精力阅读其余部分。如果你是一位经验丰富的研究人员,你会发现第二章以及第三部分和第四部分最为有用。

The best way to deal with the com­plex­ity of re­search (and its anxi­et­ies) is to read this book twice. First skim it to un­der­stand what lies ahead (flip past what seems te­di­ous or con­fus­ing). But then, as you be­gin your work, care­fully read the chapters rel­ev­ant to your im­me­di­ate task. If you are new to re­search, re­read from the be­gin­ning. If you are in an in­ter­me­di­ate course but not yet at home in your field, skim parts I and II then con­cen­trate on the rest. If you are an ex­per­i­enced re­searcher, you will find chapter 2 and parts III and IV most use­ful.

在本导论中,我们探讨了如何理解研究以及为什么受众希望我们以特定的方式呈现研究成果。在第一部分中,我们探讨了如何构建和开展研究项目:

In this in­tro­duc­tion, we have ad­dressed how to un­der­stand re­search and why audi­ences ex­pect us to present our re­search in par­tic­u­lar ways. In part I, we ad­dress how to frame and de­velop your re­search pro­ject:

  • ▪ 如何找到感兴趣的领域中的一个主题,然后如何聚焦并围绕它提出问题(第 1 章);
  • ▪  how to find a topic in an area of in­terest, then how to fo­cus it and de­velop ques­tions about it (chapter 1);
  • ▪ 如何将这些问题转化为研究问题(第 2 章)。
  • ▪  how to trans­form those ques­tions into a re­search prob­lem (chapter 2).

第二部分,我们将讨论如何处理各种来源的材料。我们将解释

In part II, we dis­cuss how to work with a range of source ma­ter­i­als. We ex­plain

  • ▪ 如何找到资源来指导你寻找答案(第 3 章);
  • ▪  how to find sources to guide your search for an­swers (chapter 3);
  • ▪ 如何以鼓励自己进行最佳思考的方式与信息来源互动(第 4 章)。
  • ▪  how to en­gage sources in ways that en­cour­age your own best think­ing (chapter 4).

第三部分,我们将讨论如何提出充分的理由来支持你的主张。这包括

In part III, we dis­cuss how to make a sound case in sup­port of your claim. That in­cludes

  • ▪ 研究论证概述(第 5 章);
  • ▪  an over­view of a re­search ar­gu­ment (chapter 5);
  • ▪ 如何阐明你的主张并评估其重要性(第 6 章);
  • ▪  how to ar­tic­u­late your claim and eval­u­ate it for its sig­ni­fic­ance (chapter 6);
  • ▪ 如何判断什么是好理由和可靠证据(第 7 章);
  • ▪  how to judge what count as good reas­ons and sound evid­ence (chapter 7);
  • ▪ 如何使你的论证逻辑清晰明了(第 8 章);
  • ▪  how to make the lo­gic of your ar­gu­ment clear (chapter 8);
  • ▪ 如何承认和回应问题、反对意见和替代观点(第 9 章)。
  • ▪  how to ac­know­ledge and re­spond to ques­tions, ob­jec­tions, and al­tern­at­ive views (chapter 9).

第四部分,我们将详细介绍撰写正式论文或演示文稿的步骤:

In part IV, we lay out the steps in pro­du­cing a formal pa­per or present­a­tion:

  • ▪ 如何计划和执行初稿(第 10 章);
  • ▪  how to plan and ex­ecute a first draft (chapter 10);
  • ▪ 如何修改和组织该草稿(第 11 章);
  • ▪  how to re­vise and or­gan­ize that draft (chapter 11);
  • ▪ 如何整合资料来源(第 12 章);
  • ▪  how to in­cor­por­ate sources (chapter 12);
  • ▪ 如何清晰有效地呈现定量证据(第 13 章);
  • ▪  how to present quant­it­at­ive evid­ence clearly and ef­fect­ively (chapter 13);
  • ▪ 如何撰写引言和结论,以说服读者相信你的论点值得他们花时间阅读(第 14 章);
  • ▪  how to write an in­tro­duc­tion and con­clu­sion that con­vince an audi­ence that your ar­gu­ment is worth their time (chapter 14);
  • ▪ 如何修改你的写作风格,使其清晰、直接、易读(第 15 章);
  • ▪  how to edit your style to make it clear, dir­ect, and read­able (chapter 15);
  • ▪ 如何以演示文稿的形式展示您的研究成果(第 16 章)。
  • ▪  how to de­liver your re­search as a present­a­tion (chapter 16).

在第五部分中,我们反思了我们在进行符合伦理的研究方面的义务(第 17 章),并向那些向他人传授研究技巧的人提供了具体的建议(第 18 章)。

In part V, we re­flect on our ob­lig­a­tions to con­duct re­search eth­ic­ally (chapter 17) and of­fer par­tic­u­lar ad­vice to those who teach the craft of re­search to oth­ers (chapter 18).

除了第五部分之外,每章末尾都附有“快速提示”部分,这些简短的章节为正文提供了实用建议。本书最后还附有参考书目,供初学者和高级研究人员参考。

At the end of all of the chapters ex­cept for those in part V, you will find “Quick Tips,” brief sec­tions that com­ple­ment the chapters with prac­tical ad­vice. At the end of the book is a bib­li­o­graphy of re­sources for be­gin­ning and ad­vanced re­search­ers.

研究是一项艰苦的工作,但就像任何具有挑战性的工作一样,只要做得好,其过程和成果都能带来巨大的满足感。这种满足感很大程度上来自于你的工作能够丰富与你志同道合的群体,尤其当你发现一些你认为可以改变他们思维方式和认知的东西时。

Re­search is hard work, but like any chal­len­ging job done well, both its pro­cess and its res­ults can bring great sat­is­fac­tion. No small part of that sat­is­fac­tion comes from know­ing that your work en­riches a com­munity that shares your in­terests, es­pe­cially when you dis­cover some­thing that you be­lieve can change what and how it thinks.

▶ 小贴士:了解受众的清单

▶ Quick Tip: A Check­list for Un­der­stand­ing Your Audi­ence

从一开始就考虑你的受众,因为随着项目的推进,你会对他们有更深入的了解。尽早回答这些问题,然后在开始规划时以及修改时再次审视这些问题。

Think about your audi­ence from the start, know­ing that you’ll un­der­stand them bet­ter as you work through your pro­ject. An­swer these ques­tions early on, then re­visit them when you start plan­ning and again when you re­vise.

  1. 1. 我将与谁分享我的作品?
    • ▪ 那些期望我遵守所有学术规范并使用标准格式的专业人士?
    • ▪ 是信息灵通的普通受众吗?
    • ▪ 听众对该主题知之甚少?
  2. 1. With whom will I share my work?
    • ▪  Pro­fes­sion­als who ex­pect me to fol­low every aca­demic con­ven­tion and use a stand­ard format?
    • ▪  A well-in­formed gen­eral audi­ence?
    • ▪  An audi­ence that knows little about the topic?
  3. 2. 他们希望我做什么?我应该这样做吗?
    • ▪ 招待他们?
    • ▪ 提供新的事实性知识?
    • ▪ 帮助他们更好地理解某些事情?
    • 帮助他们解决实际问题?
  4. 2. What do they ex­pect me to do? Should I
    • ▪  en­ter­tain them?
    • ▪  provide new fac­tual know­ledge?
    • ▪  help them un­der­stand some­thing bet­ter?
    • ▪  help them do some­thing to solve a prac­tical prob­lem?
  5. 3. 我可以期望他们已经了解多少?
    • ▪ 他们对我的主题了解多少?
    • ▪ 他们是否已经意识到这个问题?
    • ▪ 这是他们已经拥有但尚未意识到的东西吗?
    • ▪ 难道问题不在于他们,而在于我吗?
    • 他们会认真对待这个问题吗?还是我必须说服他们这个问题很重要?
  6. 3. How much can I ex­pect them to know already?
    • ▪  What do they know about my topic?
    • ▪  Is the prob­lem one that they already re­cog­nize?
    • ▪  Is it one that they have but haven’t yet re­cog­nized?
    • ▪  Is the prob­lem not theirs but only mine?
    • ▪  Will they take the prob­lem ser­i­ously, or must I con­vince them that it mat­ters?
  7. 4. 我的听众会如何回应我的主要论点中的解决方案/答案?
    • 这会与他们已有的信念相矛盾吗?如何矛盾?
    • 他们会提出反对我方案的常见论点吗?
    • 他们会想看看我找到解决方案的步骤吗?
  8. 4. How will my audi­ence re­spond to the solu­tion/an­swer in my main claim?
    • ▪  Will it con­tra­dict what they already be­lieve? How?
    • ▪  Will they make stand­ard ar­gu­ments against my solu­tion?
    • ▪  Will they want to see the steps that led me to that solu­tion?

第一部分

Part I

提出问题,寻求答案

Ask­ing Ques­tions, Seek­ing An­swers

序幕

Pro­logue

项目规划概述

Planning Your Project—An Overview

如果你已经有了研究问题,并且知道如何寻找答案,可以快速浏览前两章;然后,随着研究任务的推进,再仔细阅读其余章节。如果你是从零开始,那么你的首要任务是找到一个值得研究的项目。换句话说,你必须构思一个足够具体的课题,确保你的研究工作能够在规定的时间内完成。但是,仅仅有一个课题,无论多么具体,都是不够的。一个研究项目始于一个研究问题,这个问题不仅要让你感兴趣,也要让其他人感兴趣。而且,这个问题必须是有答案的

If you already have a re­search ques­tion and know how to look for its an­swer, re­view the first two chapters quickly; then read the re­main­ing ones care­fully as they be­come rel­ev­ant to your task. If you are start­ing from scratch, your first task is to find a re­search pro­ject worth in­vest­ig­at­ing. In other words, you must ima­gine a pro­ject that ad­dresses a topic spe­cific enough that the re­search you do is man­age­able in the time you have to do it. But it’s not enough to just have a topic, how­ever spe­cific. A re­search pro­ject be­gins with a re­search ques­tion, one not only in­ter­est­ing to you, but also to oth­ers. And that ques­tion must be one that has an an­swer.

当然,你不可能在提出研究问题的同时就知道答案。一个真正的研究问题,只能通过收集和分析证据,最终得出可辩驳的结论才能得到解答。一个简单的事实性问题——罗莎·帕克斯在哪一天拒绝给白人乘客让座,从而引发了蒙哥马利巴士抵制运动? ——答案是:1955年12月1日。但除非这个日期存在争议(而这个问题本身并无争议),否则它比诸如“罗莎·帕克斯那天为什么拒绝让座?”或“罗莎·帕克斯那天的行动是如何之类的问题更值得探讨。

Of course, you can’t know the an­swer to your re­search ques­tion as you ask it. A genu­ine re­search ques­tion is one that can only be answered by gath­er­ing and ana­lyz­ing evid­ence in an ef­fort to ar­rive at an ar­gu­able claim. A simple ques­tion of fact—On what date did Rosa Parks re­fuse to re­lin­quish her seat for a white pas­sen­ger, thus spark­ing the Mont­gomery Bus Boy­cott?—has an an­swer: Decem­ber 1, 1955. But un­less that date is in dis­pute (this one isn’t), there is less to ar­gue about than there is with ques­tions such as Why did Rosa Parks re­fuse to move on that day? or How did Rosa Parks’s ac­tions on that day ini­ti­ate a turn­ing point in the his­tory of civil rights in Amer­ica?

回答这类解释性问题通常需要不止一条证据,甚至不止一种类型的证据。我们将后面的章节中更详细地讨论“证据”这个概念,但现在我们想先简单说明一点。本书将介绍我们如何使用“证据”以及其他相关术语。我们所说的“证据”指的是研究人员用来支持其论点的所有“素材”。不同领域的研究人员往往用不同的名称来称呼这些素材:事实、发现数据信息。在本书中,我们或多或少地交替使用“数据”和“信息”。这里需要注意的是,信息或数据本身是惰性的。只有当你用它们来支持一个能够回答你的研究问题的论点时,它们才能成为证据。

An­swer­ing these sorts of in­ter­pret­ive ques­tions usu­ally re­quires more than one piece or even one type of evid­ence. We talk more about this term evid­ence in later chapters, but we want to say some­thing now about how we use it and other terms through­out the book. By evid­ence we mean all the “stuff” that re­search­ers use to sup­port their claims. Re­search­ers in dif­fer­ent fields tend to call this stuff by dif­fer­ent names: facts, find­ings, data, in­form­a­tion. In this book, we use data or in­form­a­tion more or less in­ter­change­ably. The im­port­ant thing to re­cog­nize here is that bits of in­form­a­tion or data are, in them­selves, in­ert. They be­come evid­ence only when you use them to sup­port a claim that an­swers your re­search ques­tion.

当你确定研究主题并提出研究问题时,你需要考虑需要哪些类型的证据来支撑你的答案。你的读者会接受来自二手资料的数据或信息,还是期望你参考一手资料(参见4.5节)?他们会期望看到定量数据、权威人士的引述,还是第一手的观察结果?在开始研究项目时,你可能无法完全了解这些问题的答案,而且答案很可能取决于你的研究领域。但是,提出研究问题的基本步骤在所有领域都是相似的。一旦你认为你拥有足够的数据或信息来支持至少一个合理的答案,你就可以开始构建论证(参见第三部分),然后进行计划、撰写和修改(参见第四部分)。

As you fo­cus on a topic and for­mu­late a re­search ques­tion, you will need to con­sider what kinds of evid­ence you will need to sup­port an an­swer. Will your audi­ence ac­cept data or in­form­a­tion from sec­ond­ary sources or ex­pect you to con­sult primary sources (see 4.5)? Will they ex­pect quant­it­at­ive data, quo­ta­tions from au­thor­it­ies, or firsthand ob­ser­va­tions? You may not know the an­swers to these ques­tions fully when you be­gin a re­search pro­ject, and their an­swers will likely de­pend on your field of study. But the ba­sic step of for­mu­lat­ing a re­search ques­tion is sim­ilar across all fields. Once you think you have enough data or in­form­a­tion to sup­port at least a plaus­ible an­swer to your ques­tion, you will be ready to start as­sem­bling an ar­gu­ment that makes your case (see part III), then to plan, draft, and re­vise it (see part IV).

然而,你会发现,你无法按照我们列出的步骤一步一步地完成研究。在你收集到所有必要的证据之前,你就会对你的研究问题有一个初步的答案。当你认为自己找到了一个值得提出的论点时,你可能会发现你需要更多、甚至不同的证据,这些证据可能来自新的来源。你甚至可能会修改你的研究主题。做研究不像沿着一条平坦、路标清晰的小路漫步到熟悉的目的地;它更像是在崎岖的山路上蜿蜒穿行,穿过杂草丛生的树林,有时甚至在雾气中跋涉,寻找着你直到看到它才会认出的东西。无论你的路径多么曲折,只要你在每一步都考虑到可能出现的弯路(甚至可以避开其中一些),你就能取得进展。

You will dis­cover, how­ever, that you can­not march through these steps in the neat or­der we present them. You will think of a tent­at­ive an­swer to your re­search ques­tion be­fore you have all the evid­ence you need to sup­port it. And when you think you have an ar­gu­ment worth mak­ing, you may dis­cover you need more and maybe dif­fer­ent evid­ence from new sources. You may even modify your topic. Do­ing re­search is not like strolling along an easy, well-marked path to a fa­mil­iar des­tin­a­tion; it’s more like zig­zag­ging up and down a rocky hill through over­grown woods, some­times in a fog, search­ing for some­thing you won’t re­cog­nize un­til you see it. No mat­ter how in­dir­ect your path, you can make pro­gress if at each step of the way you plan for pre­dict­able de­tours (and maybe even avoid some of them).

▶ 小贴士:如何独自或与团队合作完成研究项目

▶ Quick Tip: Sus­tain­ing a Re­search Pro­ject Alone and in Groups

研究项目更像是一场马拉松,而非短跑。但这并非一定是一个艰辛的过程:稳扎稳打才能最终获胜。无论研究项目持续几周、一年甚至更久,期间都有机会休息、分享进展(甚至可以让你的项目衍生出新的项目),照顾好自己至关重要。写作是一项艰苦的工作;但就像许多活动一样,练习越多,时间越长就越轻松。他人合作也有助于你坚持下去。

A re­search pro­ject is more a mara­thon than a sprint. But it is not ne­ces­sar­ily a gruel­ing pro­cess: slow and steady wins the race. Whether a re­search pro­ject spans a few weeks or a year or more, with op­por­tun­it­ies to take a break or share work in pro­gress ahead of com­plet­ing the pro­ject (or even al­low your pro­ject to spawn new pro­jects), it is vi­tal that you take care of your­self. Writ­ing is hard work; but like many activ­it­ies, do­ing more of it makes it easier over time. And do­ing it with oth­ers helps to sus­tain your ef­forts.

即使最终成果并非论文,也要下定决心在过程中进行大量的写作。其中大部分可能是日常笔记,但你也应该进行反思性写作,以加深理解。让阅读本身成为一种写作:列出提纲;解释你为何不同意某个观点;绘制图表将看似无关的事实联系起来;总结资料来源、立场和思想流派;甚至记录下零散的想法。许多研究人员发现,记日记对于记录直觉、新想法、思考、问题、其他疑问等等都很有帮助。你最终的草稿可能不会包含太多这类“探索式写作”。但是,当你每天边读边写时,你就能激发自己最佳的批判性思维,更好地理解资料来源,并在时机成熟时更高效地完成写作。我们常常在费尽心思将想法写在纸上之后,才发现自己真正的想法和想要表达的内容。如果你在正式写作之前进行非正式的写作,就能让灵感更早地出现,甚至可能避免日后的许多麻烦和遗憾。

Re­solve to do lots of writ­ing along the way, even if your fi­nal product is not a pa­per. Much of it will be routine note-tak­ing, but you should also write re­flect­ively, to un­der­stand. Let your read­ing be­come a form of writ­ing: make out­lines; ex­plain why you dis­agree with a source; draw dia­grams to con­nect dis­par­ate facts; sum­mar­ize sources, po­s­i­tions, and schools of thought; re­cord even ran­dom thoughts. Many re­search­ers find it use­ful to keep a journal for hunches, new ideas, mus­ings, prob­lems, ad­di­tional ques­tions, and so on. You might not in­clude much of this writ­ing-to-dis­cover in your fi­nal draft. But when you write as you go, every day, you en­cour­age your own best crit­ical think­ing, un­der­stand your sources bet­ter, and, when the time comes, draft more pro­duct­ively. Too of­ten, we dis­cover what we really think and want to say after we have labored to put thoughts on pa­per. You can al­low those light­bulb mo­ments to come earlier when you write in­form­ally well ahead of formal draft­ing and might even save your­self much grief or re­gret in the pro­cess.

某些学科的学术研究的一大弊端在于其孤独性。除了小组项目之外,你大部分时间都要独自阅读和写作。(对某些人来说,这段与他人分离的时间是研究和写作中最难熬的部分。)但情况并非必须如此。除了老师或导师之外,你可以寻找其他人,他们可以与你讨论你的研究进展,审阅你的草稿,甚至督促你写得够多。这可以是慷慨的朋友,但更好的选择是另一位写作者,这样你们就可以互相交流想法和草稿。越来越多的写作者会寻求一位或多位同行的支持。合作伙伴在规划和起草过程的各个阶段对他们的工作做出回应。

A ma­jor down­side of aca­demic re­search in some dis­cip­lines is its isol­a­tion. Ex­cept for group pro­jects, you will read and write mostly alone. (For some people, this time apart from oth­ers is the hard­est part of re­search­ing and writ­ing.) But it doesn’t have to be that way. Look for someone other than your teacher or ad­viser who can talk to you about your pro­gress, re­view your drafts, or even pester you about how much you have writ­ten. That might be a gen­er­ous friend, but even bet­ter is an­other writer so that you can com­ment on each other’s ideas and drafts. In­creas­ingly, writers turn to the sup­port of one or more part­ners to re­spond to their work at vari­ous stages in the plan­ning and draft­ing pro­cess.

最好的方法是组建一个由四五个人组成的小组,他们各自开展自己的项目,定期聚会,阅读和讨论彼此的工作。在项目初期,每次会议都应该以每个人的项目概述开始,这个概述可以用三个部分组成:我正在研究 X,因为我想找出 Y,这样我(以及你们)就能更好地理解 Z(更多内容请参见1.3)。随着项目的推进,你需要准备一个“电梯演讲”,也就是一个简短的项目概要,可以在去开会的路上,在电梯里向别人介绍。它应该包括你的研究问题、你对答案的最佳猜测,以及你打算用来支持答案的证据类型。之后,小组可以提出问题、回应和建议。

Best of all is a group of four or five people work­ing on their own pro­jects who meet reg­u­larly to read and dis­cuss one an­other’s work. Early on, each meet­ing should start with a sum­mary of each per­son’s pro­ject in this three-part sen­tence: I’m work­ing on X be­cause I want to find out Y, so that I (and you) can bet­ter un­der­stand Z (more about this in 1.3). As your pro­ject ad­vances, de­velop an open­ing “el­ev­ator pitch,” a short sum­mary of your pro­ject that you could give someone dur­ing an el­ev­ator ride on the way to a meet­ing. It should in­clude your re­search ques­tion, your best guess at an an­swer, and the kind of evid­ence you ex­pect to use to sup­port it. The group can then fol­low up with ques­tions, re­sponses, and sug­ges­tions.

然而,不要仅仅局限于讲述你的故事。要谈谈你的目标受众或潜在受众:他们为什么会对你的问题感兴趣?他们会如何回应你的论点?他们会相信你的证据吗?他们是否已经有了其他证据?这些问题能帮助你规划论证,预判受众的预期。当你陷入写作瓶颈时,小组甚至可以帮助你进行头脑风暴。之后,小组成员可以互相审阅提纲和草稿,设想最终受众的反应。如果你的小组对你的草稿有意见,那么你的受众也会有同样的感受。但对大多数写作者来说,写作小组最有价值的地方在于它带来的自律。当你知道自己必须向他人汇报时,就更容易按时完成任务。此外,分享作品、挑战和成功所带来的社群精神也同样重要。

Don’t limit your talk to just your story, how­ever. Talk about your in­ten­ded or po­ten­tial audi­ence: Why should they be in­ter­ested in your ques­tion? How might they re­spond to your ar­gu­ment? Will they trust your evid­ence? Will they have other evid­ence in mind? Such ques­tions help you plan an ar­gu­ment that an­ti­cip­ates what your audi­ence ex­pects. Your group can even help you brain­storm when you get bogged down. Later, group mem­bers can re­view one an­other’s out­lines and drafts to ima­gine how their fi­nal audi­ences will re­spond. If your group has a prob­lem with your draft, so will that audi­ence. But for most writers, a writ­ing group is most valu­able for the dis­cip­line it im­poses. It is easier to meet a sched­ule when you know you must an­swer to oth­ers. But there is value, too, in the spirit of com­munity that arises from shar­ing our work, our chal­lenges, and our suc­cess.

论文或学位论文的写作小组很常见。但课堂论文或演讲的规则则有所不同。有些老师认为小组或写作伙伴提供的帮助过多,因此务必弄清楚老师允许的范围。

Writ­ing groups are com­mon for those writ­ing theses or dis­ser­ta­tions. But the rules dif­fer for class pa­pers or present­a­tions. Some teach­ers think that a group or writ­ing part­ner provides more help than is ap­pro­pri­ate, so be clear what your teacher al­lows.

1 从主题到问题

1  From Top­ics to Ques­tions

本章将探讨如何从你感兴趣的领域中寻找研究主题,将其细化到可控范围,然后提出问题,从而找到能够指导你研究的问题。如果你是一位经验丰富的研究人员,或者已经确定了研究主题,可以直接跳到第二章。但如果你是第一次开展研究项目,本章内容将对你有所帮助。

In this chapter, we dis­cuss how to find a topic among your in­terests, re­fine it to a man­age­able scope, then ques­tion it to find the mak­ings of a prob­lem that can guide your re­search. If you are an ex­per­i­enced re­searcher or know the topic you want to pur­sue, skip to chapter 2. But if you are start­ing your first pro­ject, you will find this chapter use­ful.

对我们许多人来说,早期的研究经历往往是老师布置一个课题,让我们通过查阅资料来深入了解,并撰写研究报告(例如,沉积作用的地质过程,或是巴基斯坦人权活动家、诺贝尔和平奖得主马拉拉·优素福扎伊的生平事迹)。因此,你可能主要从课题的角度来理解研究。如果你是研究新手,自由选择课题可能会让你感到不知所措我该从何入手?如何判断一个课题的好坏?我能找到足够的信息来撰写论文吗?这些都是很合理的问题,但它们反映了人们对研究的基本误解。在本章中,我们将提供一种更好的方法来思考研究项目以及如何着手开展研究。

For many of us, an early ex­per­i­ence with re­search in­volves be­ing as­signed a topic by a teacher, some­thing to learn more about by look­ing stuff up and re­port­ing on what we found (e.g., the geo­lo­gical pro­cess of sed­i­ment­a­tion or the life and ca­reer of Malala Yousafzai, Pakistani hu­man rights act­iv­ist and No­bel Peace Prize laur­eate). You may there­fore think of re­search primar­ily in terms of a topic. If you are new to re­search, the free­dom to pick your own topic can seem daunt­ing. Where do I be­gin? How do I tell a good topic from a bad one? Will I find enough in­form­a­tion on this topic to write about it? These are reas­on­able ques­tions, but they re­flect a ba­sic mis­un­der­stand­ing about re­search. In this chapter, we of­fer a bet­ter way to think about re­search pro­jects and how to be­gin one.

把你的研究主题看作是探究的起点。“主题”一词源于希腊语“topos”,意为“地点”。学科(subject)指的是一个广泛的知识领域(例如,动物学),而研究主题则是该领域内的一个具体兴趣点(例如,无脊椎动物)。当然,研究主题还可以更细分(例如,昆虫,甚至是七星瓢虫)。但是,选择研究主题并非仅仅是将学科范围缩小到能够找到足够信息但又不会过多的信息。最好的研究主题会提出一个关于学科的问题,而这个问题的答案能够解决你和你的读者都关心的问题。本章我们将重点讨论如何围绕一个主题提出问题。下一章,我们关注的是研究问题不仅要有答案,还要能解决问题

Think of your topic as a start­ing point for an in­quiry. The word comes from the Greek topos, mean­ing place. While a sub­ject is a broad area of know­ledge (e.g., zo­ology), a topic is a spe­cific in­terest within that area (e.g., in­ver­teb­rate life). Of course, a topic can be nar­rower still (e.g., in­sects or even the seven-spot­ted lady beetle). But choos­ing a topic to re­search is not simply a mat­ter of nar­row­ing your sub­ject to the point that you can find enough in­form­a­tion, but not too much. The best topic will raise a ques­tion about a sub­ject whose an­swer solves a prob­lem that you and your audi­ence care about. In this chapter, we fo­cus on how to for­mu­late ques­tions about a topic. In the next chapter, we fo­cus on how re­search ques­tions not only have an­swers but also solve prob­lems.

1.1  从兴趣到主题

1.1  From an In­terest to a Topic

同样,初学者常常难以在众多兴趣中找到研究课题。部分原因是,学术方法似乎与许多兴趣领域格格不入。学生们很难想象会有一群研究人员或学者愿意倾听他们对某个课题的看法,也很难认为自己有资格发表研究成果。这是每位初学者都必须克服的障碍。在此过程中,记住研究能让你成为某​​个领域的相对专家,这一点至关重要。你或许不如其他人了解得那么多,但你完全可以掌握足够的知识,加入到学者们正在进行的讨论中——甚至可以开启新的对话。

Again, be­gin­ning re­search­ers of­ten find it dif­fi­cult to loc­ate a topic among their var­ied in­terests. This is in part be­cause an aca­demic ap­proach to many in­terests can seem a strange fit at first. It’s not easy for stu­dents to ima­gine a com­munity of re­search­ers or schol­ars who will want to hear what they have to say on a topic or to think that they have the au­thor­ity to present their re­search. This is a hurdle that any be­gin­ning re­searcher must over­come. In do­ing so, it’s help­ful to re­mem­ber that re­search en­ables you to be­come a re­l­at­ive ex­pert on a topic. You may not know as much as some oth­ers do, but you can know enough to join a con­ver­sa­tion among schol­ars already in pro­gress—or even start a new one.

同时,那些刚进入某个研究领域的人往往能以全新的视角看待事物;仅凭这一点就足以成为与其他研究人员展开对话的理由。这或许是一句老生常谈,但仍然是一条有用的建议:从你感兴趣的事情开始。

At the same time, those who are new to re­search in a field of­ten see things with a fresh eye; that alone can be reason enough to enter into a dia­logue with other re­search­ers. It may be a cliché, but it’s still use­ful ad­vice: Start with what in­terests you.

1.1.1  在写作课程中寻找主题

1.1.1  Find­ing a Topic in a Writ­ing Course

许多研究项目都始于写作课程,学习学术研究是这些课程的目标之一。如果你也处于这种情况,并且可以相对自由地选择研究主题,那么不妨利用这个机会探索你的兴趣,无论它多么平凡或边缘。不要局限于你认为应该研究的内容,或者老师会认可的研究方向。想想你最近读过或听过什么,或者和朋友家人讨论过什么。想想你遇到的分歧点或让你感到惊讶的地方,或许是某些事情促使你上网搜索以满足你的好奇心。你可以列出尽可能多的兴趣点(十个或更多),以便进一步探索,而不必急于做出决定。此时,你可能只是在完善“我想了解更多关于……”的想法(例如,二维码技术),而没有具体的方向。如果仍然没有想到任何有前景的研究主题,请参考本章末尾的“快速提示”

Many re­search pro­jects be­gin in a writ­ing course where learn­ing to do aca­demic re­search is a goal. If that’s your situ­ation and you can choose top­ics more or less freely, use this op­por­tun­ity to ex­plore an in­terest, how­ever mundane or mar­ginal. Don’t limit your­self to what you think you should re­search or what a teacher will ap­prove. Think about what you have read or listened to re­cently or dis­cussed with friends or fam­ily. Think about points of dis­agree­ment or ele­ments of sur­prise, per­haps some­thing that has promp­ted you to search on­line to sat­isfy your curi­os­ity. You might list as many in­terests as you can (ten or more) to ex­plore fur­ther without feel­ing any need to de­cide just yet. At this point, you may be just com­plet­ing the thought I’d like to learn more about . . . (e.g., the tech­no­logy of QR codes) without a spe­cific fo­cus. If no prom­ising top­ics come to mind, con­sult the Quick Tip at the end of this chapter.

在研究初期,看看是否有相关信息,或者是否有人与你一样对此感兴趣并进行过研究,会让你感到安心。虽然用谷歌搜索某个主题很容易,但面对海量的搜索结果,你可能会感到不知所措。当然,你也会发现一些有价值的网站,它们反映了相关组织或兴趣团体对某个主题的关注,并能激发你进一步的思考。对于许多主题,你可以在热门网站维基百科上找到有用的信息。但是,不要在没有核实维基百科文章所依赖的参考文献的情况下,就将维基百科作为可靠的研究证据来源(参见3.4)。

At this early stage, it can be re­as­sur­ing to see if there is in­form­a­tion out there or if oth­ers share your in­terest enough to have re­searched it. It is easy to google a topic, al­though it can be over­whelm­ing to wade through the volume of hits you’ll likely re­ceive. There are bound to be prom­ising web­sites that re­flect at­ten­tion to a topic by or­gan­iz­a­tions or in­terest groups and that spur fur­ther think­ing on your part. For many top­ics, you will find use­ful in­form­a­tion on the pop­u­lar web­site Wiki­pe­dia. How­ever, don’t turn to Wiki­pe­dia as a re­li­able source of evid­ence to use in your re­search without vet­ting ref­er­ence ma­ter­i­als on which Wiki­pe­dia art­icles rely (see 3.4).

1.1.2  在特定领域寻找研究课题

1.1.2  Find­ing a Topic for a Re­search Pro­ject in a Par­tic­u­lar Field

随着你对某个特定领域或学科了解的深入,你的研究重点也会变得更加具体。为了找到研究主题,你仍然可以参考像《不列颠百科全书》这样的通用学术资源,但你也可以通过一些专业资源来查找主题,例如《国际政治学百科全书》或国际妇女研究》。你还通过谷歌学术(Google Scholar)来探索相关主题,谷歌学术是一个专注于学术期刊和书籍的搜索引擎。

As you learn more about a par­tic­u­lar field or sub­ject, the fo­cus of your re­search will be­come more spe­cific. To find a topic, you might still con­sult gen­eral aca­demic re­sources like En­cyc­lo­pae­dia Brit­an­nica, but you can also find top­ics through spe­cial­ized re­sources such as the In­ter­na­tional En­cyc­lo­pe­dia of Polit­ical Sci­ence or Wo­men’s Stud­ies In­ter­na­tional. You can also ex­plore top­ics through Google Scholar, a search en­gine that fo­cuses on schol­arly journ­als and books.

如果您在研究领域已达到入门水平以上,那么您很可能已经阅读过一些相关文献(参见3.1.2 ),并且对该领域的一些争论有所了解(这些争论可能不为外人所知)。如果是这样,研究项目就是您参与这些争论的绝佳机会。为了更好地理解这些争论,您可以浏览您所在领域期刊的最新期刊,或者阅读专业会议的征稿启事。您还可以联系图书馆员,特别是那些专攻您所在领域的图书馆员,或者查阅您所在机构的特藏和档案馆藏。

If you have ad­vanced bey­ond an in­tro­duct­ory level in your field of study, you most likely have read some of its lit­er­at­ure (see 3.1.2) and have some aware­ness of its areas of de­bate (which may not be vis­ible to out­siders). If so, a re­search pro­ject is an op­por­tun­ity to enter into those de­bates your­self. To bet­ter un­der­stand them, you can skim the latest is­sues of journ­als in your field or read calls for pa­pers for pro­fes­sional con­fer­ences. You might also reach out to lib­rar­i­ans, es­pe­cially those who spe­cial­ize in your field, or ex­am­ine your in­sti­tu­tion’s spe­cial col­lec­tions and archives.

1.1.3  聚焦主题

1.1.3  Bring­ing a Topic into Fo­cus

当研究课题无法用寥寥数语概括时,就进入了研究项目的关键阶段。例如,“托尔斯泰作品中的自由意志”、“商业航空史”和“二战时期的人物‘铆钉女工罗西’”这些主题都过于简短和宽泛,需要更深入的细节来阐述。

You reach a cru­cial stage in a re­search pro­ject when a topic of in­terest can­not be stated in a few words. For ex­ample, the top­ics “free will in Tol­stoy,” “the his­tory of com­mer­cial avi­ation,” and “the World War II–era fig­ure Rosie the Riv­eter” are too short and too dif­fuse. They re­quire an­other level of de­tail:

托尔斯泰在《战争与和平》中对三场战役的描述体现了自由意志与必然性的冲突。

在商业航空发展的早期阶段,军方对DC-3的研发做出了贡献。

二战时期“铆钉女工罗西”如何演变为女权主义偶像

The con­flict of free will and in­ev­it­ab­il­ity in Tol­stoy’s de­scrip­tion of three battles in War and Peace

The con­tri­bu­tion of the mil­it­ary in de­vel­op­ing the DC-3 in the early years of com­mer­cial avi­ation

The evol­u­tion of the World War II–era fig­ure Rosie the Riv­eter as a fem­in­ist icon

我们通过添加一些特殊的词语和短语来聚焦这些主题:冲突、描述贡献、发展和演变。这些名词源自表示动作的动词:冲突、描述、贡献发展演变。如果缺少动作”词汇,你的主题就显得静态。

We fo­cused those top­ics by adding words and phrases of a spe­cial kind: con­flict, de­scrip­tion, con­tri­bu­tion, de­vel­op­ing, and evol­u­tion. Those nouns are de­rived from verbs ex­press­ing ac­tions: to con­flict, to de­scribe, to con­trib­ute, to de­velop, and to evolve. Lack­ing “ac­tion” words, your topic is static.

注意当我们用完整句子重述静态主题时会发生什么。主题(1)、(2)和(3)几乎没有任何变化:

Note what hap­pens when we re­state static top­ics as full sen­tences. Top­ics (1), (2), and (3) change barely at all:

(1)托尔斯泰作品→ 托尔斯泰的小说中存在

(2)商业航空史主题→ 商业航空有着悠久

(3)二战时期人物“铆钉女工罗西”话题 →二战时期铆钉

(1) Free will in Tol­stoytopic There is free will in Tol­stoy’s nov­els.claim

(2) The his­tory of com­mer­cial avi­ationtopic Com­mer­cial avi­ation has a his­tory.claim

(3) The World War II–era fig­ure Rosie the Riv­etertopic There is a World War II–era fig­ure Rosie the Riv­eter.claim

事实上,(1)、(2) 和 (3) 都不是有用的话题,因为它们无法引出任何结论。有些人甚至会说,这些根本算不上话题。但是,(4)、(5) 和 (6) 却是有用的话题,因为当它们被修改成完整的句子时,就变成了听众可能会感兴趣的论点。

In fact, (1), (2), and (3) are not use­ful top­ics be­cause they do not lead any­where. Some might say these are not top­ics at all. But (4), (5), and (6) are use­ful top­ics be­cause when they are re­vised into full sen­tences, they be­come claims that an audi­ence might find in­ter­est­ing.

(4)托尔斯泰在《战争与的描述中自由意志与必然性的冲突→ 在《战争和平》中,托尔斯泰描述了三场自由意志与必然性发生冲突的战役

(5)军方在早期商用航空发展中对DC-3的贡献 → 在早期 商用航空发展中,军方对DC - 3的研发做出了贡献

(6)二战时期“铆钉女工罗西”形象演变为女权主义偶像的话题 →自二战以来演变为女权主义偶像

(4) The con­flict of free will and in­ev­it­ab­il­ity in Tol­stoy’s de­scrip­tion of three battles in War and Peacetopic In War and Peace, Tol­stoy de­scribes three battles in which free will and in­ev­it­ab­il­ity con­flict.claim

(5) The con­tri­bu­tion of the mil­it­ary in de­vel­op­ing the DC-3 in the early years of com­mer­cial avi­ationtopic In the early years of com­mer­cial avi­ation, the mil­it­ary con­trib­uted to the way the DC-3 de­veloped.claim

(6) The evol­u­tion of the World War II–era fig­ure Rosie the Riv­eter as a fem­in­ist icontopic Since World War II, the fig­ure of Rosie the Riv­eter has evolved as a fem­in­ist icon.claim

这些论点乍看之下可能略显单薄,但随着项目的推进,你会使它们更加充实。关键就在于此:将主题发展成论点,有助于你构思项目,并最终构建出完整的论证。

Such claims may at first seem thin, but you will make them richer as you work through your pro­ject. And that’s the point: de­vel­op­ing top­ics into claims will help you de­vise your pro­ject and ima­gine the ar­gu­ment you will even­tu­ally make.

1.2  从聚焦主题到研究问题

1.2  From Fo­cused Topic to Re­search Ques­tion

确定研究主题后,许多初学者都会犯一个错误:他们会搜集所有相关信息。例如,如果选题很有前景,比如二战时期“铆钉女工罗西”如何演变为女权主义偶像,初学者会收集笔记和摘要,整理时间线和大量“罗西”的图片,找出关于这个人物意义的各种不同说法——然后写一篇论文,尽可能地罗列各种事实。

Upon identi­fy­ing a fo­cused topic, many be­gin­ning re­search­ers make a mis­take: they seek out all the in­form­a­tion they can find on it. With a prom­ising topic such as the evol­u­tion of the World War II–era fig­ure Rosie the Riv­eter as a fem­in­ist icon, a be­gin­ner will ac­cu­mu­late notes and sum­mar­ies, as­semble a timeline and a trove of “Rosie” im­ages, and identify com­pet­ing ac­counts of the fig­ure’s sig­ni­fic­ance—and then write a pa­per that in­cludes as many facts as can be packed in.

许多高中老师会给这样的论文打高分,因为它表明作者能够专注于某个主题,找到相关信息,并将这些信息整理成文——这绝非易事。但在大学课程乃至更高层次的学习中,如果作者没有提出任何值得探讨的问题,那么这篇论文就称不上合格。没有问题,就没有值得论证的答案。而如果没有答案来支撑,研究者就无法从所有相关数据中筛选出真正有价值的信息,也无法论证某个答案对知识的贡献。诚然,那些对墨西哥摔跤或第一代电子游戏感兴趣的人会阅读任何关于它们的新内容。然而,严肃的研究者并非为了记录信息而记录信息,而是利用信息来支撑他们(以及他们希望的读者)认为值得探讨的问题的答案。

Many high school teach­ers would re­ward such a pa­per with a good grade be­cause it shows that the writer can fo­cus on a topic, find in­form­a­tion on it, and as­semble that in­form­a­tion into a pa­per—no small achieve­ment. But in any col­lege course and bey­ond, this pa­per falls short if its writer raises no ques­tion worth ask­ing. Without a ques­tion, there is no an­swer worth sup­port­ing. And without an an­swer to sup­port, there is no way to se­lect what’s rel­ev­ant from all the data on a topic a re­searcher might find or to ar­gue for the sig­ni­fic­ance of an an­swer as a con­tri­bu­tion to know­ledge. To be sure, those fas­cin­ated by Mex­ican wrest­ling or first-gen­er­a­tion video games will read any­thing new about them. Ser­i­ous re­search­ers, how­ever, do not doc­u­ment in­form­a­tion for its own sake but use it to sup­port an­swers to ques­tions that they (and they hope their audi­ences) think are worth ask­ing.

研究问题有助于引导你找到解答问题所需的信息。同时,它也为你的研究确立了目的,使你和你的受众都能理解分享研究成果的意义所在。本节将提供一些提出研究问题的策略。

A re­search ques­tion helps dir­ect you to the in­form­a­tion you need to an­swer it. Equally, it es­tab­lishes a pur­pose for your re­search, al­low­ing you and your audi­ence to un­der­stand what is to be gained from shar­ing it. This sec­tion of­fers strategies for ques­tion­ing your topic.

首先从标准的新闻写作提示入手:什么何时何地,但重点要放在如何以及为什么上。为了激发你最佳的批判性思维,系统地提出关于你所选主题的历史、构成和类别的问题。然后,提出你能想到的或在资料中找到的任何其他问题。记录下所有问题,但即使有一两个问题吸引了你的注意,也不要停下来回答。这份可能的清单将帮助你梳理所有可能的线索。问题将有助于指导你的搜索活动,并帮助你理解找到的信息。(不必担心把所有内容都理顺;你现阶段的唯一目标是激发你对主题的疑问,并整理你的答案。)

Start with the stand­ard journ­al­istic prompts: who, what, when, and where, but fo­cus on how and why. To en­gage your best crit­ical think­ing, sys­tem­at­ic­ally ask ques­tions about your topic’s his­tory, com­pos­i­tion, and cat­egor­ies. Then ask any other ques­tions you can think of or find in your sources. Re­cord all the ques­tions, but don’t stop to an­swer them even when one or two grab your at­ten­tion. This in­vent­ory of pos­sible ques­tions will help to dir­ect your search activ­it­ies and en­able you to make sense of in­form­a­tion you find. (Don’t worry about keep­ing everything straight; your only pur­pose at this point is to stim­u­late ques­tions about your topic and or­gan­ize your an­swers.)

我们将以陶器的发展为例,陶器是用粘土制成物体,并在高温下烧制,使其坚硬耐用的过程。

We’ll use as an ex­ample the de­vel­op­ment of pot­tery, the pro­cess of form­ing ob­jects out of clay and fir­ing them to high tem­per­at­ures to make them hard and dur­able.

1.2.1  询问有关你所选主题的历史

1.2.1  Ask About the His­tory of Your Topic

  • ▪ 它如何融入更大的发展背景?陶器有多
  • ▪  How does it fit into a lar­ger de­vel­op­mental con­text? How old is pot­tery? Who in­ven­ted pot­tery? Does every civil­iz­a­tion have some form of pot­tery? What came be­fore pot­tery? Which is older, pot­tery or ag­ri­cul­ture?
  • 陶器本身的历史是怎样的?随着时间的推移,陶器这一主题发生了哪些变化?为什么会发生这些变化?从方法、材料和用途方面来看,陶器的发展经历了哪些阶段?陶器生产方式又是如何以及为什么会随着时间推移而发生变化的?陶器领域目前有哪些新的发展?
  • ▪  What is its own in­ternal his­tory? How and why has the topic it­self changed over time? What are the stages of pot­tery’s de­vel­op­ment over time in terms of meth­ods, ma­ter­i­als, and pur­poses? How and why has pot­tery pro­duc­tion changed over time? Are there new de­vel­op­ments in pot­tery?

1.2.2  询问其结构和组成

1.2.2  Ask About Its Struc­ture and Com­pos­i­tion

  • ▪ 你的研究主题如何融入更大的结构或功能,成为更大系统的一部分?它与……有何 陶器和陶瓷有哪些用途?陶器的用途范围是什么?陶器在经济贸易和文化交流中扮演了什么角色?
  • ▪  How does your topic fit into the con­text of a lar­ger struc­ture or func­tion as part of a lar­ger sys­tem? What is the dif­fer­ence between pot­tery and ceram­ics? What is the range of uses of pot­tery? What role did pot­tery play in eco­nomic trade and cul­tural ex­change?
  • ▪ 陶器的各个部分如何组合成一个系统?制作陶器的方法和材料是什么
  • ▪  How do its parts fit to­gether as a sys­tem? What are the meth­ods and ma­ter­i­als for pro­du­cing pot­tery? What are its steps and stages? What does one need to know to make pot­tery?

1.2.3  询问你的主题是如何分类的

1.2.3  Ask How Your Topic Is Cat­egor­ized

  • ▪ 你的主题可以如何分类陶器的基本类型有哪些?用于休闲或艺术目的的陶器制作与工业化生产有何不同?陶器是艺术还是工艺?
  • ▪  How can your topic be or­gan­ized into kinds? What are the ba­sic types of pot­tery? How does mak­ing pot­tery for re­cre­ational or artistic pur­poses dif­fer from its in­dus­trial man­u­fac­ture? Is pot­tery an art or a craft?
  • ▪ 你的研究主题与其他类似主题有何异同?陶器与编织、冶金和玻璃制造之间有何联系?为什么陶器的质量和价格各不相同?陶器制品和塑料制品哪个更好?
  • ▪  How does your topic com­pare to and con­trast with oth­ers like it? What are pot­tery’s re­la­tion­ships to bas­ketry, me­tal­lurgy, and glass­mak­ing? Why does pot­tery dif­fer in qual­ity and price? Which is bet­ter, things made from pot­tery or from plastic?

1.2.4  提出“如果……会怎样?”及其他推测性问题

1.2.4  Ask What If? and Other Spec­u­lat­ive Ques­tions

  • ▪ 如果你的研究主题从未存在过、消失过,或者被置于新的语境中,情况会有什么不同?如果没有陶器,人类文化会是什么样子?我们能没有陶器吗?陶器在未来会扮演什么角色?
  • ▪  How would things be dif­fer­ent if your topic never ex­is­ted, dis­ap­peared, or were put into a new con­text? What would hu­man cul­ture be like without pot­tery? Can we do without pot­tery? What role will pot­tery play in the fu­ture?

1.2.5  提出信息来源建议的问题

1.2.5  Ask Ques­tions Sug­ges­ted by Your Sources

在你对主题进行一些阅读之前,你无法做到这一点。提出基于共识的问题

You won’t be able to do this un­til you’ve done some read­ing on your topic. Ask ques­tions that build on agree­ment:

  • ▪ 如果某个资料来源提出的论点你认为很有说服力,可以提出一些问题来拓展其影响范围。例如,吴等人提出,“东亚陶瓷的早期年代测定驳斥了陶器生产的开始与农业转型相关的观点”(《科学》,2012年6月)。如果不是农业,那么陶器的发明又是在怎样的社会背景下进行的呢?
  • ▪  If a source makes a claim you think is per­suas­ive, ask ques­tions that might ex­tend its reach. Wu et al. pro­pose that “the early dat­ing of East Asian ceram­ics re­futes the idea that the be­gin­ning of pot­tery pro­duc­tion was as­so­ci­ated with the trans­ition to ag­ri­cul­ture” (Sci­ence, June 2012). What was the so­ci­etal con­text for its in­ven­tion, if not ag­ri­cul­ture?
  • ▪ 提出一些问题,这些问题或许能用新的证据来支持同样的论点。我们是否在世界其他地区发现了农业出现之前使用陶器的证据?
  • ▪  Ask ques­tions that might sup­port the same claim with new evid­ence. Do we find evid­ence for pre-ag­ri­cul­tural use of pot­tery in other parts of the world?
  • ▪ 提出与资料来源就类似主题提出的问题类似的问题。史密斯从保护商业秘密的角度分析了玻璃制造。如果对陶器进行类似的分析,又会揭示出什么呢?
  • ▪  Ask ques­tions ana­log­ous to those that sources have asked about sim­ilar top­ics. Smith ana­lyzes glass­mak­ing from the per­spect­ive of pro­tect­ing trade secrets. What would a sim­ilar ana­lysis of pot­tery re­veal?

现在提出一些反映不同意见的问题

Now ask ques­tions that re­flect dis­agree­ment:

  • ▪ 询问新的证据,或者以新的方式看待的旧证据,是否可能与某个来源的说法相矛盾。马丁内斯声称陶器在美国东南部和西南部地区独立发展。但是,考古记录中是否存在这些地区之间存在文化交流的证据呢?
  • ▪  Ask if new evid­ence, or old evid­ence con­sidered in a new way, might con­tra­dict a source’s claim. Mar­tinez claims that pot­tery de­veloped in­de­pend­ently in the South­east and South­w­est re­gions of the United States. But is there evid­ence in the ar­chae­olo­gical re­cord of cul­tural ex­change between these re­gions?
  • ▪ 注意两份资料的分歧之处。鉴于阮的论点是……,马丁内斯怎么能声称美国东南部和西南部地区的陶器是独立发展的呢?
  • ▪  No­tice where two sources dis­agree. How can Mar­tinez claim that pot­tery de­veloped in­de­pend­ently in the South­east and South­w­est re­gions of the United States given Nguyen’s ar­gu­ment that . . . ?

(我们将在4.4 节第 9 章中更详细地讨论如何利用与资料来源的分歧。)

(We dis­cuss in more de­tail how to use dis­agree­ments with sources in 4.4 and chapter 9.)

如果你是一位经验丰富的研究人员,可以寻找其他研究人员提出但尚未解答的问题。许多期刊文章的结尾都会有一两段关于未决问题、未来研究方向等的论述(例如,参见2.4.2节)。你或许无法完成他们建议的所有研究,但可以尝试从中选取一部分。你也可以在网上或社交媒体上搜索与你研究主题相关的讨论,然后“潜水”,阅读其中的交流内容,了解讨论的焦点。记录下那些激发你兴趣的问题。如果你觉得自己准备好了,不妨也贡献一些自己的研究成果。

If you are an ex­per­i­enced re­searcher, look for ques­tions that other re­search­ers ask but don’t an­swer. Many journal art­icles end with a para­graph or two about open ques­tions, ideas for more re­search, and so on (see 2.4.2 for an ex­ample). You might not be able to do all the re­search they sug­gest, but you might carve out a piece of it. You can also look for on­line dis­cus­sions or so­cial me­dia threads on your topic, then “lurk,” just read­ing the ex­changes to un­der­stand the de­bate. Re­cord ques­tions that spark your in­terest. If you feel ready, con­trib­ute some­thing your­self.

1.2.6  评估你的问题

1.2.6  Eval­u­ate Your Ques­tions

提出所有你能想到的问题之后,要对它们进行评估,因为并非所有问题都同样好。寻找那些答案能让你(理想情况下,也能让你的听众)以全新视角思考主题的问题。避免提出类似这样的问题:

After ask­ing all the ques­tions you can think of, eval­u­ate them, be­cause not all ques­tions are equally good. Look for ques­tions whose an­swers might make you (and, ideally, your audi­ence) think about your topic in a new way. Avoid ques­tions like these:

  • 他们的答案都是一些显而易见的事实,你只要查一下就能知道。比如,瓷器的主要原料是什么?比起“谁”“什么”、 “何时”或“何地” ,提出“如何”“为什么”的问题更能引发深入思考,而深入思考又能带来更有趣的答案。
  • ▪  Their an­swers are settled fact that you could just look up. What is the primary clay for por­cel­ain? Ques­tions that ask how and why in­vite deeper think­ing than who, what, when, or where, and deeper think­ing leads to more in­ter­est­ing an­swers.
  • 他们的答案无法得到任何合理可找到的数据支持。威廉·莎士比亚拥有哪些书籍?令人遗憾的是,尽管几个世纪以来人们一直在研究莎士比亚的藏书,但至今仍没有一份可靠的莎士比亚藏书清单。 对此问题,大家并不感兴趣。所以,除非你取得了重大发现,否则你无法回答这个问题。
  • ▪  Their an­swers can’t be sup­por­ted by any data you could reas­on­ably ex­pect to find. What books did Wil­liam Shakespeare own? Sadly, there’s no re­li­able in­vent­ory of Shakespeare’s lib­rary, des­pite cen­tur­ies of in­terest in this ques­tion. So it’s not one you can ad­dress, un­less of course you’ve made a mo­nu­mental dis­cov­ery.
  • 他们的答案很可能毫无意义。亚伯拉罕·林肯去福特剧院之前吃了什么?很难看出这个问题的答案如何能帮助我们更好地思考任何值得理解的更宏大的问题,所以这个问题或许根本不值得问。
  • ▪  Their an­swers are likely to be dead ends. What did Ab­ra­ham Lin­coln eat be­fore go­ing to Ford’s Theatre? It is hard to see how an an­swer would help us think about any lar­ger is­sue worth un­der­stand­ing bet­ter, so it’s a ques­tion that’s prob­ably not worth ask­ing.

但请记住:看似无益的问题,未必真的毫无意义。既定事实可能会被新的证据推翻,曾经看似无解的问题(例如,什么是人类意识?)如今已成为严谨的科学研究课题。即使是看似琐碎或愚蠢的问题,其答案也可能比预期的更有意义。一位研究人员曾好奇为什么洒出的咖啡会干涸成环状,结果发现了流体性质方面的一些规律,这些规律不仅被同行视为重要,也被油漆制造商视为宝贵的发现。所以,谁知道关于林肯晚餐的问题会把你引向何方呢?不到最后一刻,你永远无法预知。

But re­mem­ber: it’s al­ways pos­sible that a ques­tion that seems un­pro­duct­ive might not be. Settled facts can be­come un­settled with new evid­ence, and ques­tions that once seemed un­answer­able (e.g., What is hu­man con­scious­ness?) are now sub­jects of hard sci­entific re­search. Even ques­tions that seem trivial or silly can have an­swers more sig­ni­fic­ant than ex­pec­ted. One re­searcher wondered why a cof­fee spill dries up in the form of a ring and dis­covered things about the prop­er­ties of flu­ids that oth­ers in his field thought im­port­ant—and that paint man­u­fac­tur­ers found valu­able. So who knows where a ques­tion about Lin­coln’s din­ner might take you? You can’t know un­til you get there.

一旦你有了几个有前景的问题,就尝试将它们组合成更大的问题。例如,许多关于近期移除公共场所南方邦联纪念碑的做法的问题都意识到,捍卫移除或保留这些纪念碑的政治意义在于:移除的目的是什么?哪些因素促成了保留它们的论点?政客们是如何利用这场争议的?这些问题可以合并成一个单一的问题:

Once you have a few prom­ising ques­tions, try to com­bine them into lar­ger ones. For ex­ample, many ques­tions about the re­cent prac­tice of re­mov­ing Con­fed­er­ate monu­ments from pub­lic spaces re­cog­nize the polit­ical im­plic­a­tions of de­fend­ing their re­moval or pre­ser­va­tion: What pur­poses does re­moval serve? What factors con­trib­ute to ar­gu­ments to pre­serve them? How have politi­cians used the con­tro­versy? These can be com­bined into a single ques­tion:

在美国,保留或移除南方邦联纪念碑的问题是如何以及为何成为一个政治焦点的?

How and why has the pre­ser­va­tion or re­moval of Con­fed­er­ate monu­ments emerged as a polit­ical flash point in the United States?

这样的问题能为你的研究指明方向(并有助于避免收集无休止的信息)。它还能帮助你设想潜在的受众,由他们来判断你的问题是否重要。

A ques­tion like this gives dir­ec­tion to your re­search (and helps avoid the gath­er­ing of end­less in­form­a­tion). And it be­gins to ima­gine an audi­ence that will judge whether your ques­tion is sig­ni­fic­ant.

1.3  最重要的问题:那又怎样?

1.3  The Most Sig­ni­fic­ant Ques­tion: So What?

一旦你遇到一个让你感兴趣的问题,就必须提出一个更尖锐的问题:那又怎样?除了你自己对答案的兴趣之外,为什么其他人会认为这是一个值得提出的问题?你可能并不……能够及早回答“那又怎样?”这个问题,但你必须开始思考这个问题,因为它迫使你超越自己的兴趣,去思考你的作品可能会给别人带来怎样的感受。

Once you have a ques­tion that holds your in­terest, you must pose a tougher one about it: So what? Bey­ond your own in­terest in its an­swer, why would oth­ers think it a ques­tion worth ask­ing? You might not be able to an­swer that So what? ques­tion early on, but it’s one you have to start think­ing about, be­cause it forces you to look bey­ond your own in­terests to con­sider how your work might strike oth­ers.

不妨这样想:如果你回答这个问题,你会失去什么?回答这个问题又会如何阻碍我们更好地理解其他事物?首先,问问自己“那又怎样?”

Think of it like this: What will be lost if you don’t an­swer your ques­tion? How will not an­swer­ing it keep us from un­der­stand­ing some­thing else bet­ter than we do? Start by ask­ing So what? at first of your­self.

就算我不知道或不理解蝴蝶是如何在冬天找到栖身之所的,或者十五世纪的音乐家是如何调音的,又或者为什么南方邦联纪念碑的地位会成为一个如此具有争议性的问题,那又怎样?就算我无法回答自己的问题,那又怎样?我们会失去什么?

So what if I don’t know or un­der­stand how but­ter­flies know where to go in the winter, or how fif­teenth-cen­tury mu­si­cians tuned their in­stru­ments, or why the status of Con­fed­er­ate monu­ments has be­come such a di­vis­ive is­sue? So what if I can’t an­swer my ques­tion? What do we lose?

你的答案可能是“没什么,我只是好奇”。这可以作为开头,但不足以作为结尾,因为最终你的受众也会提出同样的问题,并且他们想要的答案不仅仅是“只是好奇”。 “那又怎样?”这个问题会让所有研究人员,无论新手还是经验丰富的研究人员都感到困扰,因为当你只有一个问题时,很难预测其他人是否会认为它的答案有意义。但你必须在整个项目过程中朝着这个方向努力寻找答案。你可以分三步完成。

Your an­swer might be Noth­ing. I just want to know. Good enough to start but not to fin­ish, be­cause even­tu­ally your audi­ence will ask as well and will want an an­swer bey­ond Just curi­ous. An­swer­ing So what? vexes all re­search­ers, be­gin­ners and ex­per­i­enced alike, be­cause when you have only a ques­tion, it’s hard to pre­dict whether oth­ers will think its an­swer is sig­ni­fic­ant. But you must work to­ward that an­swer through­out your pro­ject. You can do that in three steps.

1.3.1  第一步:给你的主题命名

1.3.1  Step 1: Name Your Topic

如果你要启动一个项目,只有一个主题,或许还有一两个好问题的雏形,那就先给你的项目命名:

If you are be­gin­ning a pro­ject with only a topic and maybe the glim­mer­ings of a good ques­tion or two, start by nam­ing your pro­ject:

我正在学习/研究/学习________________。

I am try­ing to learn about/work­ing on/study­ing ________________.

请用以下由动词衍生出的名词填空,写出你的主题:

Fill in the blank with your topic, us­ing some of those nouns de­rived from verbs:

我正在研究北极冰芯样本……

我正在研究林肯关于预定论的信念及其对他的推理的影响 ……

I am study­ing Arc­tic ice-core samples . . .

I am work­ing on Lin­coln’s be­liefs about pre­des­tin­a­tion and their in­flu­ence on his reas­on­ing . . .

1.3.2  步骤 2:添加间接问句

1.3.2  Step 2: Add an In­dir­ect Ques­tion

添加一个间接问题,表明你对该主题有哪些不了解或不理解的地方:

Add an in­dir­ect ques­tion that in­dic­ates what you do not know or un­der­stand about your topic:

  1. 1. 我正在学习/从事________________方面的工作。
    1. 2.因为我想知道谁/什么/何时/何地/是否/为什么/如何________________。
  2. 1. I am study­ing/work­ing on ________________
    1. 2. be­cause I want to find out who/what/when/where/whether/why/how ________________.
  3. 1. 我正在研究北极冰芯样本
    1. 2.因为我想了解过去地质时期的大气成分……
  4. 1. I am study­ing Arc­tic ice-core samples
    1. 2. be­cause I want to find out the com­pos­i­tion of the at­mo­sphere in past geo­lo­gical eras . . .
  5. 1. 我正在研究林肯关于预定论的信念及其对他推理的影响。
    1. 2.因为我想了解他对上帝旨意的理解如何影响了他对内战起因的理解……
  6. 1. I am work­ing on Lin­coln’s be­liefs about pre­des­tin­a­tion and their in­flu­ence on his reas­on­ing
    1. 2. be­cause I want to find out how his no­tion of God’s will in­flu­enced his un­der­stand­ing of the causes of the Civil War . . .

当你加上“因为我想找出谁/.../如何”这样的从句时,你就说明了研究这个主题的原因:为了回答一个对你来说很重要的问题。

When you add that be­cause I want to find out who/ . . . /how clause, you state why you are pur­su­ing your topic: to an­swer a ques­tion im­port­ant to you.

如果你是一位新晋研究员,并且已经走到这一步,那么恭喜你,因为你已经超越了单纯的数据收集阶段。但现在,如果可以的话,再进一步。资深研究员深知自己必须迈出这一步,因为他们明白,他们的工作最终的评判标准并非其对自身的意义,而是其对本领域其他研究者的意义。他们必须能够回答“那又怎样?”这个问题。

If you are a new re­searcher and get this far, con­grat­u­late your­self, be­cause you have moved bey­ond merely col­lect­ing data. But now, if you can, take one step more. It’s one that ad­vanced re­search­ers know they must take be­cause they know their work will be judged not by its sig­ni­fic­ance to them but by its sig­ni­fic­ance to oth­ers in their field. They must have an an­swer to So what?

1.3.3  第三步:通过阐述问题来回答“那又怎样?”

1.3.3  Step 3: An­swer So What? by Mo­tiv­at­ing Your Ques­tion

这一步可以告诉你,你的问题是否不仅你自己感兴趣,其他人也可能感兴趣。为此,可以添加第二个间接问题,解释你提出第一个问题的原因。引入第二个隐含问题时,可以使用以下语句:为了帮助听众理解“如何”、“为什么”或“是否”

This step tells you whether your ques­tion might in­terest not just you but oth­ers. To do that, add a second in­dir­ect ques­tion that ex­plains why you asked your first ques­tion. In­tro­duce this second im­plied ques­tion with in or­der to help my audi­ence un­der­stand how, why, or whether:

  1. 1. 我正在研究北极冰芯样本
    1. 2. 因为我想了解过去地质时期的大气成分,
      1. 3.为了帮助我的听众了解地球气候随时间推移发生的变化。
  2. 1. I am study­ing Arc­tic ice-core samples
    1. 2. be­cause I want to find out the com­pos­i­tion of the at­mo­sphere in past geo­lo­gical eras,
      1. 3. in or­der to help my audi­ence un­der­stand how the earth’s cli­mate has changed over time.
  3. 1. 我正在研究林肯关于预定论的信念及其对他推理的影响。
    1. 2. 因为我想了解他对上帝旨意的理解如何影响了他对内战起因的理解。
      1. 3.为了帮助我的听众理解他的宗教信仰如何影响了他的军事决策。
  4. 1. I am work­ing on Lin­coln’s be­liefs about pre­des­tin­a­tion and their in­flu­ence on his reas­on­ing
    1. 2. be­cause I want to find out how his no­tion of God’s will in­flu­enced his un­der­stand­ing of the causes of the Civil War,
      1. 3. in or­der to help my audi­ence un­der­stand how his re­li­gious be­liefs may have in­flu­enced his mil­it­ary de­cisions.

第三步中提出的间接问题,正是你希望能够吸引听众兴趣的地方。如果它触及了你所在领域的重要议题,即使是间接的,那么听众也应该会关心它的答案。

It is the in­dir­ect ques­tion in step 3 that you hope will seize your audi­ence’s in­terest. If it touches on is­sues im­port­ant to your field, even in­dir­ectly, then your audi­ence should care about its an­swer.

一些资深研究人员一开始就提出一些同行们早已关注的问题:中生代大气中甲烷的含量是多少?或者:冒险行为是否具有遗传基础?但许多研究人员发现,在完成初稿之前,他们无法完整地阐述这三个步骤中的最后一步。因此,在没有对第三个问题——“为什么这很重要? ”——给出令人满意的答案的情况下开始研究并非错误,但如果在完成研究之前没有认真思考过这三个步骤,就会遇到问题。如果你从事的是前沿研究,那么尤其需要认真思考第三步,因为回答最后一个问题是你融入研究群体讨论的敲门砖。

Some ad­vanced re­search­ers be­gin with ques­tions that oth­ers in their field already care about: How much meth­ane was in the at­mo­sphere in the Meso­zoic Era? Or: Is risk tak­ing ge­net­ic­ally based? But many re­search­ers find that they can’t flesh out the last step in that three-part sen­tence un­til they fin­ish a first draft. So it’s not a mis­take to be­gin your re­search without a good an­swer to that third ques­tion—Why does this mat­ter?—but you face a prob­lem when you fin­ish your re­search without hav­ing thought through each of those three steps. And if you are do­ing ad­vanced re­search, you must take that third step es­pe­cially, be­cause an­swer­ing that last ques­tion is your ticket into the con­ver­sa­tion of your re­search com­munity.

通过与他人交流项目进展来检验你的成果。如果你是研究团队的一员,要定期与合作者讨论,不仅要讨论你在做什么,还要讨论为什么要做。如果你独自工作,可以和一位了解你研究领域的人交流。尽可能地,也要向那些了解不多但你尊重和信任的人解释你的项目。他们的提问和回答会促使你完成这三个步骤。即使你无法完全完成,你也会知道自己身处何处,以及还需要朝着哪个方向努力。

Test your pro­gress by talk­ing about your pro­ject with oth­ers. If you are part of a re­search team, reg­u­larly dis­cuss with your col­lab­or­at­ors not just what you are do­ing but why. If you are work­ing alone, talk with someone who is know­ledge­able about your sub­ject. Whenever you can, ex­plain your pro­ject also to people who know little about it but whom you re­spect and trust. Their ques­tions and re­sponses will force you to fill in those three steps. Even if you can’t do so fully, you’ll know where you are and where you still have to go.

总而言之:你的目标是解释

To sum­mar­ize: Your aim is to ex­plain

  1. 1. 你正在研究的内容——我正在研究……
    1. 2. 你不知道的事情——因为我想弄清楚……
      1. 3. 你为什么希望你的受众了解并关注它——为了帮助我的受众更好地理解……
  2. 1. what you are study­ing—I am work­ing on the topic of . . .
    1. 2. what you don’t know about it—be­cause I want to find out . . .
      1. 3. why you want your audi­ence to know and care about it—in or­der to help my audi­ence un­der­stand bet­ter . . .

在接下来的章节中,我们将回到这三个步骤及其隐含的问题,因为它们对于构建你希望你的受众重视的研究问题至关重要。

In the fol­low­ing chapters, we re­turn to those three steps and their im­plied ques­tions, be­cause they are cru­cial for fram­ing the re­search prob­lem that you want your audi­ence to value.

▶ 小技巧:寻找主题

▶ Quick Tip: Find­ing Top­ics

如果您是初学者,请先参考我们关于探索互联网和浏览参考资料的建议(参见1.1)。如果您仍然一头雾水,请尝试以下步骤。

If you are a be­gin­ner, start with our sug­ges­tions about ex­plor­ing the in­ter­net and skim­ming ref­er­ence sources (see 1.1). If you still draw a blank, try these steps.

大众兴趣话题

For General Interest Topics

  • 你有什么特别的兴趣爱好——帆船、国际象棋、雀类、老式漫画书?越冷门越好。研究一些你不知道的方面:它的起源、技术、在其他文化中的实践方式等等。
  • ▪  What spe­cial in­terest do you have—sail­ing, chess, finches, old comic books? The less com­mon, the bet­ter. In­vest­ig­ate some­thing about it you don’t know: its ori­gins, its tech­no­logy, how it is prac­ticed in an­other cul­ture, and so on.
  • 你想去哪里旅行?浏览网络和社交媒体,尽可能多地了解你的目的地。哪些方面让你感到惊讶或想要了解更多?
  • ▪  Where would you like to travel? Scan the in­ter­net and so­cial me­dia, find­ing out all you can about your des­tin­a­tion. What par­tic­u­lar as­pect sur­prises you or makes you want to know more?
  • ▪ 漫步于博物馆,欣赏你感兴趣的展览——艺术品、恐龙、老爷车。或者浏览许多博物馆现在都已在线发布的馆藏。当有什么东西吸引你的注意力时,停下来。你还想了解些什么呢?
  • ▪  Wander through a mu­seum with ex­hib­i­tions that ap­peal to you—art­works, di­no­saurs, old cars. Or browse the col­lec­tions many mu­seums have now pos­ted on­line. Stop when some­thing catches your in­terest. What more do you want to know about it?
  • ▪ 漫步在商店或工艺品市场中,问问自己:这是怎么做出来的?或者,我想知道是谁想出了这个产品?
  • ▪  Wander through a store or craft mar­ket, ask­ing your­self, How do they make that? Or, I won­der who thought up that product?
  • ▪ 浏览新闻来源和书籍或电影评论。
  • ▪  Skim news sources and re­views of books or movies.
  • ▪ 收听播客、观看 YouTube 视频或收看访谈节目,直到听到你不同意的观点。看看你是否能找到反驳它的论据。
  • ▪  Listen to pod­casts, watch You­Tube videos, or tune in to in­ter­view pro­grams un­til you hear a claim that you dis­agree with. See whether you can make a case to re­fute it.
  • ▪ 使用搜索引擎查找与您兴趣相关的网站和其他在线资源。您会得到数百条搜索结果,但只需关注那些让您感到惊喜的内容即可。
  • ▪  Use a search en­gine to find web­sites and other on­line re­sources re­lated to your in­terests. You’ll get hun­dreds of hits, but look only at the ones that sur­prise you.
  • ▪ 使用人工智能生成工具提出问题。然后评估这些问题,看看哪些值得探讨,并尝试将其中最好的问题融入我们的三个步骤中。
  • ▪  Ask a gen­er­at­ive AI tool to sug­gest ques­tions. Then eval­u­ate those ques­tions to see if any are worth ad­dress­ing, and try to fit the best of them into our three steps.
  • ▪ 思考一下你自身的身份认同。是什么让你与众不同?是什么将你与他人联系在一起?探究一下造就这些身份认同的历史(个人和社会历史)。
  • ▪  Con­sider your own per­sonal iden­tit­ies. What makes you unique? What unites you with oth­ers? Look into the his­tor­ies (per­sonal and so­cial) that make these iden­tit­ies pos­sible.
  • ▪ 你是否认为某种常见的观点过于简单化或有误?你觉得某些常见的做法不公正?那就去做调查研究,找出反对它的理由。
  • ▪  Is there a com­mon be­lief that you sus­pect is simplistic or wrong? A com­mon prac­tice that you find un­just? Do re­search to make a case against it.
  • ▪ 你未来打算学习哪些课程?哪些研究可以帮助你为这些课程做好准备?
  • ▪  What courses will you take in the fu­ture? What re­search would help you pre­pare for them?

针对特定领域的主题

For Topics Focused on a Particular Field

如果您在该领域有经验,请复习1.1.2

If you have ex­per­i­ence in your field, re­view 1.1.2.

  • ▪ 找到你所在领域的社交媒体群组。浏览其存档内容,寻找有争议或不确定的话题。
  • ▪  Find a so­cial me­dia group in your field. Browse its archives, look­ing for mat­ters of con­tro­versy or un­cer­tainty.
  • ▪ 参加或在线观看你所在领域的公开讲座,并留意你不同意、不理解或想要了解更多的内容。
  • ▪  At­tend or watch on­line a pub­lic lec­ture in your field, and listen for some­thing you dis­agree with, don’t un­der­stand, or want to know more about.
  • 浏览各大高校院系的网站和社交媒体账号,包括课程网站。如果相关的话,也可以查看博物馆、国家协会、专业组织和政府机构的网站。
  • ▪  Surf the web­sites and so­cial me­dia feeds of de­part­ments at ma­jor uni­ver­sit­ies, in­clud­ing class sites. Also check web­sites of mu­seums, na­tional as­so­ci­ations and pro­fes­sional or­gan­iz­a­tions, and gov­ern­ment agen­cies, if they seem rel­ev­ant.
  • ▪ 如果你是学生,请向老师询问你所在领域中最具争议的问题。
  • ▪  If you are a stu­dent, ask your teacher about the most con­tested is­sues in your field.
  • ▪ 浏览一本比你当前水平高一级的课程教材,或者一本你确定将来要学习的课程教材。尤其要仔细阅读习题。
  • ▪  Browse through a text­book for a course that is one level bey­ond yours or a course that you know you will have to take. Look es­pe­cially hard at the study ques­tions.

2 从问题到难题

2  From Ques­tions to a Prob­lem

本章将阐述如何将问题转化为受众认为值得解决的难题。如果您是资深研究人员,您一定了解这一步骤的重要性。如果您是研究新手,我们希望能够让您认识到它的重要性,因为您在这里学到的知识将对您未来的所有项目都至关重要。

In this chapter, we ex­plain how to turn a ques­tion into a prob­lem that an audi­ence thinks is worth solv­ing. If you are an ad­vanced re­searcher, you know how es­sen­tial this step is. If you are new to re­search, we hope to con­vince you of its im­port­ance, be­cause what you learn here will be es­sen­tial to all your fu­ture pro­jects.

在前一章中,我们建议你通过完善以下三步公式来确定研究问题的意义:

In the pre­vi­ous chapter, we sug­ges­ted that you can identify the sig­ni­fic­ance of your re­search ques­tion by flesh­ing out this three-step for­mula:

  1. 1.主题:我正在学习________________
    1. 2.问题:因为我想知道是什么/为什么/如何________________,
      1. 3.意义:为了帮助我的听众理解________________。
  2. 1. Topic: I am study­ing ________________
    1. 2. Ques­tion: be­cause I want to find out what/why/how ________________,
      1. 3. Sig­ni­fic­ance: in or­der to help my audi­ence un­der­stand ________________.

这些步骤不仅描述了你的项目的发展过程,也描述了你作为研究人员自身的发展过程。

These steps de­scribe not only the de­vel­op­ment of your pro­ject but your own de­vel­op­ment as a re­searcher.

  • ▪ 当你从步骤 1 过渡到步骤 2 时,你不再仅仅是一个数据收集者,而是一个对更好地理解某些事物感兴趣的研究人员。
  • ▪  When you move from step 1 to 2, you are no longer a mere data col­lector but a re­searcher in­ter­ested in un­der­stand­ing some­thing bet­ter.
  • ▪ 当你从步骤 2 过渡到步骤 3 时,你要关注为什么这种理解很重要
  • ▪  When you then move from step 2 to 3, you fo­cus on why that un­der­stand­ing is sig­ni­fic­ant.

这种意义起初可能只对你个人而言,但当你能够从受众的角度阐述这种意义时,你就加入了一个研究者群体。这样做,你就能与受众建立更牢固的关系,因为你承诺会为他们的研究兴趣带来回报——让他们更深入地了解对他们而言至关重要的事物。此时,你提出了一个他们意识到需要解决的问题

That sig­ni­fic­ance might at first be just for your­self, but you join a com­munity of re­search­ers when you can state that sig­ni­fic­ance from your audi­ence’s point of view. In so do­ing, you cre­ate a stronger re­la­tion­ship with your audi­ence be­cause you prom­ise some­thing in re­turn for their in­terest in your re­search—a deeper un­der­stand­ing of some­thing that mat­ters to them. At that point, you have posed a prob­lem that they re­cog­nize needs a solu­tion.

2.1  理解研究问题

2.1  Un­der­stand­ing Re­search Prob­lems

太多不同层次的研究人员,都抱着一种仿佛他们的任务仅仅是回答一个只关乎自身利益的问题的心态去开展研究。这是错误的:要想让你的研究真正有意义,你必须解决你的研究群体——也就是你的受众——也希望解决的问题。

Too many re­search­ers, at all levels, pro­ceed as if their task is to an­swer a ques­tion that in­terests them­selves alone. That’s wrong: to make your re­search mat­ter, you must ad­dress a prob­lem that oth­ers in your com­munity—your audi­ence—also want to solve.

因此, “问题”一词在研究领域有着特殊的含义,这有时会让初学者感到困惑。在日常生活中,问题是我们试图避免的。但在学术研究中,问题是我们主动寻找的,必要时甚至会人为地创造。要理解其中的原因,你必须了解研究问题的特征。而要做到这一点,你还需要了解另外两种问题,我们称之为实践问题和概念问题。掌握了这种区别,你就能理解是什么使一个问题成为研究问题。

The term prob­lem thus has a spe­cial mean­ing in the world of re­search, one that some­times con­fuses be­gin­ners. In our every­day world, a prob­lem is some­thing we try to avoid. But in aca­demic re­search, a prob­lem is some­thing we seek out, even in­vent if we have to. To un­der­stand why, you have to un­der­stand what re­search prob­lems look like. And to do that, you have to un­der­stand two other kinds of prob­lems, what we will call prac­tical prob­lems and con­cep­tual prob­lems. With this dis­tinc­tion un­der your belt, you will be able to un­der­stand what makes a prob­lem a re­search prob­lem.

2.1.1  研究问题的常见结构

2.1.1  The Com­mon Struc­ture of Re­search Prob­lems

日常研究通常并非始于寻找写作主题,而是始于一个实际问题。如果忽视这个问题,就会带来麻烦。当问题的解决方案并不显而易见时,你必须找到解决之道。为此,你必须提出并解决另一种问题——一个研究问题,它由你对实际问题中未知或不理解的部分所定义。

Every­day re­search usu­ally be­gins not with find­ing a topic to write about but with a prac­tical prob­lem that if you ig­nore it means trouble. When its solu­tion is not ob­vi­ous, you have to find out how to solve it. To do that, you must pose and solve a prob­lem of an­other kind, a re­search prob­lem defined by what you do not know or un­der­stand about your prac­tical prob­lem.

这是一项常见的任务,通常如下所示:

It’s a fa­mil­iar task that typ­ic­ally looks like this:

  • 实际 问题:我的自行车链条断了。
  • PRAC­TICAL PROB­LEM: The chain on my bi­cycle broke.
  • 研究 问题:我能找到愿意更换它的自行车店吗?
  • RE­SEARCH PROB­LEM: Can I find a bike shop that will re­place it?
  • 研究 解决方案:地址是:Cycle Source,东 55 街 1401 号。
  • RE­SEARCH SOLU­TION: Here it is: Cycle Source, 1401 East 55th Street.
  • 实际 解决方案:走过去修自行车。
  • PRAC­TICAL SOLU­TION: Walk over to get my bike fixed.

这类问题本质上与更复杂的问题并无不同。

Prob­lems like that are in es­sence no dif­fer­ent from more com­plic­ated ones.

  • 可再生能源产业协会正在游说我支持对风力发电的补贴。如果我同意,我会失去多少选票?做个调查吧。我的大多数选民都支持发展风力发电。我可以同意他们的请求。
  • ▪  The Re­new­able En­ergy In­dus­tries As­so­ci­ation is lob­by­ing me to sup­port sub­sidies for wind power. How many votes will I lose if I agree? Do a sur­vey. Most of my con­stitu­ents sup­port the de­vel­op­ment of wind power. I can agree to the re­quest.
  • 奥马哈工厂的成本上升了。是什么原因造成的?聘请一家咨询公司来找出原因。员工流动率上升了。如果我们改善培训和员工士气,我们的员工就会留下来。
  • ▪  Costs are up at the Omaha plant. What changed? Hire a con­sult­ing firm to fig­ure it out. In­crease in turnover. If we im­prove train­ing and mor­ale, our work­ers will stick with us.

概括而言,实际问题是指世界上某些状况造成的困扰,这些状况会让我们损失时间、金钱、尊严、安全感、机会,甚至生命。解决实际问题的方法是通过采取行动(或鼓励他人采取行动)来消除或至少减轻造成这些实际损失的状况。

Put in gen­eral terms, a prac­tical prob­lem is caused by some con­di­tion in the world that troubles us be­cause it costs us time, money, re­spect, se­cur­ity, op­por­tun­ity, or even our lives. We solve a prac­tical prob­lem by do­ing some­thing (or by en­cour­aging oth­ers to do some­thing) to elim­in­ate or at least mit­ig­ate the con­di­tion cre­at­ing these tan­gible costs.

但要知道该怎么做,首先必须对某些事情有更深入的了解。例如,那位受到可再生能源产业协会游说的政客需要了解选民的意见才能决定如何投票;奥马哈发电厂的管理人员需要知道成本不断上涨的原因才能采取措施。

But to know what to do, someone first has to un­der­stand some­thing bet­ter. That politi­cian be­ing lob­bied by the Re­new­able En­ergy In­dus­tries As­so­ci­ation, for ex­ample, needs to un­der­stand con­stitu­ents’ views to de­cide how to vote; the man­agers of the Omaha plant need to know the cause of their in­creas­ing costs so they can ad­dress it.

2.1.2  理解实际问题:我们应该怎么做?

2.1.2  Un­der­stand­ing Prac­tical Prob­lems: What Should We Do?

一个实际问题包含两部分:一是造成难以承受的成本的条件,二是这些成本。要清晰地阐述一个实际问题,必须同时描述这两个部分。

A prac­tical prob­lem has two parts: a con­di­tion, which can be any­thing that im­poses in­tol­er­able costs, and those costs. To state a prac­tical prob­lem so that oth­ers un­der­stand it clearly, you must de­scribe both of its parts.

  1. 1. 其条件
    1. 我错过了公车。
    2. 海洋酸化程度正在加剧。
    3. 2.你(或你的观众)不喜欢的这种状况带来的代价:
    4. 我上班会迟到,还会丢掉工作。
    5. 有些浮游生物更难形成钙质外壳。
  2. 1. Its con­di­tion:
    1. I missed the bus.
    2. The acid­ity of the oceans is in­creas­ing.
    3. 2. The costs of that con­di­tion that you (or your audi­ence) won’t like:
    4. I’ll be late for work and lose my job.
    5. It is more dif­fi­cult for some spe­cies of plank­ton to form their cal­cium shells.

但需要注意的是:你的听众判断问题的重要性,并非取决于付出的代价,而是取决于如果你不解决这个问题,他们会付出怎样的代价。所以,认为的问题,他们可能并不这么认为。要想让你的问题成为他们的问题,你必须从他们的角度出发来阐述,让他们看到这个问题对他们造成的损失。为了做到这一点,不妨想象一下……你提出的问题中的条件部分,以及你的听众的反应:“那又怎样?”

But a cau­tion: Mem­bers of your audi­ence will judge the sig­ni­fic­ance of your prob­lem not by the cost you pay, but by the cost they pay if you don’t solve it. So what you think is a prob­lem they might not. To make your prob­lem their prob­lem, you must frame it from their point of view, so that they see its costs to them. To do that, ima­gine pos­ing the con­di­tion part of your prob­lem and your audi­ence re­spond­ing, So what?

这些浮游生物种类正在减少。

所以呢?

Those spe­cies of plank­ton are de­clin­ing.

So what?

你用另一种代价来回答:

You an­swer with an­other cost:

以浮游生物为食的海洋生物也处境艰难。

Mar­ine life that de­pends on those plank­ton for food are also strug­gling.

假设他们再次问:“那又怎样?”,而你这次的回答是经济成本而不是环境成本:

Sup­pose they again ask, So what?, and you re­spond this time with an eco­nomic rather than en­vir­on­mental cost:

商业渔业产量下降,导致价格上涨和渔业失业率上升。

Pro­duc­tion from com­mer­cial fish­er­ies is de­clin­ing, lead­ing to higher prices and un­em­ploy­ment in the fish­ing in­dustry.

然而,即便这种可能性微乎其微,如果他们再次问“那又怎样?”,你就没能让他们相信他们确实存在问题。只有当我们不再问“那又怎样?”,而是问“我们该如何解决这个问题?”时,我们才算是真正承认了问题的存在。

If, how­ever im­prob­ably, they ask yet again, So what?, you have failed to con­vince them that they have a prob­lem. We ac­know­ledge a prob­lem only when we stop ask­ing, So what?, and say, in­stead, What do we do about it?

像这样的实际问题很容易理解,因为它们很具体:当物价上涨、人们失业时,我们不会问“那又怎样?”。然而,在学术研究中,你遇到的问题通常是概念性的问题,这些问题更难理解,因为它们的条件和成本都是抽象的。

Prac­tical prob­lems like this one are easy to grasp be­cause they are con­crete: when prices go up and people lose their jobs, we don’t ask, So what? In aca­demic re­search, how­ever, your prob­lems will usu­ally be con­cep­tual ones, which are harder to grasp be­cause both their con­di­tions and costs are ab­stract.

2.1.3  理解概念性问题:我们应该怎么想?

2.1.3  Un­der­stand­ing Con­cep­tual Prob­lems: What Should We Think?

对知识或理解的需求会引发概念性问题。在研究中,当我们对世界的某些方面理解不够透彻时,就会出现概念性问题。解决概念性问题并非通过改变世界,而是通过回答有助于我们更好地理解世界的问题。

That need for know­ledge or un­der­stand­ing raises a con­cep­tual prob­lem. In re­search, a con­cep­tual prob­lem arises when we do not un­der­stand some­thing about the world as well as we would like. We solve a con­cep­tual prob­lem not by do­ing some­thing to change the world but by an­swer­ing a ques­tion that helps us un­der­stand it bet­ter.

我们通常通过研究来解答这些问题,因此概念性问题有时也被称为研究性问题。“概念性”一词描述了问题的性质、成本或后果; “研究”一词则指的是我们如何解决这些问题。从图表上看,实践性问题与概念性问题或研究性问题之间的关系如下:

We usu­ally an­swer these ques­tions through re­search, which is why con­cep­tual prob­lems are some­times called re­search prob­lems. The word con­cep­tual de­scribes their con­di­tion and costs or con­sequences; the word re­search refers to how we solve them. Graph­ic­ally, the re­la­tion­ship between prac­tical and con­cep­tual or re­search prob­lems looks like this:

循环图描绘了实际问题与概念性或研究性问题之间的关系。该循环图表明,实际问题会引发研究问题,而研究问题又会定义概念性或研究性问题。该问题最终会导向研究答案,从而有助于解决实际问题。

经验不足的研究人员有时会难以理解这些概念,因为经验丰富的研究人员通常用简略的语言谈论他们的工作。当被问及他们的研究方向时,他们常常会给出一些听起来像是我们之前提醒过你的那些宽泛主题的回答:比如成人麻疹艾米莉·狄金森的韵律,或是怀俄明州麋鹿的求偶鸣叫。因此,初学者有时会误以为找到一个研究主题就等同于找到一个需要解决的问题。

In­ex­per­i­enced re­search­ers some­times struggle with these no­tions be­cause ex­per­i­enced re­search­ers of­ten talk about their work in short­hand. When asked what they are work­ing on, they of­ten an­swer with what sounds like one of those gen­eral top­ics we warned you about: adult measles, Emily Dickin­son’s pros­ody, or mat­ing calls of Wyom­ing elk. As a res­ult, be­gin­ners some­times think that hav­ing a topic to read about is the same as hav­ing a prob­lem to solve.

2.1.4  实际问题和概念问题的共同点

2.1.4  What Prac­tical and Con­cep­tual Prob­lems Have in Com­mon

实际问题和概念问题都具有相同的两部分结构,但它们的条件和成本却有所不同。

Prac­tical and con­cep­tual prob­lems have the same two-part struc­ture, but they have dif­fer­ent kinds of con­di­tions and costs.

  • ▪ 实际问题的状态可以是任何会给你或你的听众带来实际损失的情况。
  • ▪  The con­di­tion of a prac­tical prob­lem can be any state of af­fairs that has a tan­gible cost for you or, bet­ter, for your audi­ence.
  • 然而,概念性​​问题的本质总是某种形式的不知道或不理解。
  • ▪  The con­di­tion of a con­cep­tual prob­lem, how­ever, is al­ways some ver­sion of not know­ing or not un­der­stand­ing some­thing.

你可以通过完成以下三步句来识别概念性问题(参见1.3):第一步是“我正在学习/研究________这个主题”。第二步,间接问句陈述了概念性问题的状态,即你不知道或不理解的内容:

You can identify the con­di­tion of a con­cep­tual prob­lem by com­plet­ing that three-step sen­tence (see 1.3): The first step is I am study­ing/work­ing on the topic of ________. In the second step, the in­dir­ect ques­tion states the con­di­tion of a con­cep­tual prob­lem, what you do not know or un­der­stand:

我正在研究二战时期“铆钉女工罗西”作为女权主义偶像的演变,因为我想了解这个人物是如何以及为什么随着时间的推移获得了各种各样的含义。

I am study­ing the evol­u­tion of the World War II–era fig­ure Rosie the Riv­eter as a fem­in­ist icon be­cause I want to un­der­stand how and why that fig­ure has ac­quired a range of mean­ings over time.

这就是为什么我们强调问题的价值:问题迫使你承认自己不了解或不理解但又渴望了解的事物。由于你的问题将指导你的研究,因此要特别注意问题的表述方式,它可能会如何引导你走向特定的方向,或者排除某些可能的答案或视角。例如,关于“铆钉女工罗西”的问题,其表述方式可能会让你忽略,甚至忽略罗西的形象是如何边缘化有色人种女性的。真正优秀的科研能够帮助我们和受众摆脱无知和偏见,但最难克服的偏见恰恰存在于我们提出的问题和难题本身之中。

That’s why we em­phas­ize the value of ques­tions: they force you to state what you don’t know or un­der­stand but want to. Since your prob­lem will guide your re­search, be es­pe­cially at­tent­ive to how its for­mu­la­tion might steer you in par­tic­u­lar dir­ec­tions or ex­clude pos­sible an­swers or per­spect­ives. For ex­ample, the prob­lem about Rosie the Riv­eter as it’s phrased might keep you from re­cog­niz­ing, or even look­ing into, how the ori­ginal Rosie fig­ure mar­gin­al­izes wo­men of color. Au­then­tic re­search at its best el­ev­ates us and our audi­ences out of ig­nor­ance and bias, but the most dif­fi­cult bi­ases to res­ist are those em­bed­ded in our ques­tions and prob­lems them­selves.

这两种问题带来的成本也不同。

The two kinds of prob­lems also have two dif­fer­ent kinds of costs.

  • ▪实际问题的代价总是我们不喜欢的某种有形的东西或情况。
  • ▪  The cost of a prac­tical prob­lem is al­ways some tan­gible thing or situ­ation we don’t like.

概念性问题不会产生这种切实的代价。事实上,我们将通过称概念性问题的代价为其后果来强调这种区别

A con­cep­tual prob­lem does not have such a tan­gible cost. In fact, we’ll em­phas­ize this dif­fer­ence by call­ing the cost of a con­cep­tual prob­lem its con­sequence.

  • 概念性问题会导致一种特殊的无知:正是由于缺乏理解,我们才无法理解其他更重要的事物。换句话说,因为我们没有回答一个问题,所以我们也无法回答另一个更重要的问题。
  • ▪  The con­sequence of a con­cep­tual prob­lem is a par­tic­u­lar kind of ig­nor­ance: it is a lack of un­der­stand­ing that keeps us from un­der­stand­ing some­thing else even more sig­ni­fic­ant. Put an­other way, be­cause we haven’t answered one ques­tion, we can’t an­swer an­other that is more im­port­ant.

研究人员选择研究项目往往只是出于好奇。事实上,我们大多数人最初对所研究的课题产生兴趣也是出于好奇。但要想让你的研究对他人有意义,你不能仅仅说“我发现这个很有意思”,而应该向他们展示解决你的问题如何帮助他们解决自身的问题。而做到这一点的方法就是解释你的问题所带来的后果。

Re­search­ers of­ten choose pro­jects simply be­cause they are curi­ous. In fact, that’s how most of us first be­come in­ter­ested in the sub­jects we study. But to make your re­search mat­ter to oth­ers, you have to say more than Here is some­thing I find in­ter­est­ing. You have to show them how solv­ing your prob­lem helps them solve theirs. You do that by ex­plain­ing your prob­lem’s con­sequence.

在我们的公式第三步中,您可以通过间接问句表达问题的后果:

You ex­press a prob­lem’s con­sequence in the in­dir­ect ques­tion in step 3 of our for­mula:

我正在研究二战时期“铆钉女工罗西”作为女权主义偶像的演变,因为我想了解这个人物是如何以及为什么随着时间的推移获得了各种各样的含义,从而理解图像是如何被重新用于新的目的,以及它们如何具有许多观众没有意识到的排他性含义。

I am study­ing the evol­u­tion of the World War II–era fig­ure Rosie the Riv­eter as a fem­in­ist icon be­cause I want to find out how and why that fig­ure has ac­quired a range of mean­ings over time to un­der­stand how im­ages can be re­pur­posed to new ends and also have ex­clu­sion­ary mean­ings that many view­ers didn’t re­cog­nize.

这一切听起来可能令人困惑,但其实比看起来要简单得多。概念性问题的条件和结果这两个问题之间存在两种关联:

All of this may sound con­fus­ing, but it is sim­pler than it seems. The con­di­tion and the con­sequence of a con­cep­tual prob­lem are ques­tions that re­late to each other in two ways:

  • ▪ 第一个问题(Q1)的答案有助于你回答第二个问题(Q2)。
  • ▪  The an­swer to the first ques­tion (Q1) helps you an­swer the second (Q2).
  • ▪ 第二个问题(Q2)的答案比第一个问题(Q1)的答案更重要。
  • ▪  The an­swer to the second ques­tion (Q2) is more im­port­ant than the an­swer to the first (Q1).

同样,研究问题的第一部分是你不知道但想要了解的东西。你可以将这种知识或理解上的不足表述为一个直接的问题:过去五十年里,爱情电影发生了哪些变化?或者,也可以表述为一个间接的问题:我想了解过去五十年里爱情电影发生了哪些变化。

Again, the first part of a re­search prob­lem is some­thing you don’t know but want to. You can phrase that gap in know­ledge or un­der­stand­ing as a dir­ect ques­tion: How have ro­mantic movies changed in the last fifty years? Or as an in­dir­ect ques­tion: I want to find out how ro­mantic movies have changed in the last fifty years.

现在想象一下有人问:如果你回答不了这个问题怎么办?你的回答是:说明一些比第一个问题的答案更重要的信息。例如:

Now ima­gine someone ask­ing, So what if you can’t an­swer that ques­tion? You an­swer by stat­ing some­thing else more im­port­ant that the an­swer to the first ques­tion helps you know. For ex­ample:

回答“过去五十年浪漫电影发生了哪些变化”这个问题(前提/第一个问题)有助于 我们回答一个更重要的问题:我们对浪漫爱情的文化描绘发生了哪些变化? (结果/更重要的第二个问题)

An­swer­ing the ques­tion of how ro­mantic movies have changed in the last fifty yearscon­di­tion/first ques­tion helps us an­swer a more im­port­ant ques­tion: How have our cul­tural de­pic­tions of ro­mantic love changed?con­sequence/lar­ger, more im­port­ant second ques­tion

如果你认为回答第二个问题很重要,那么你就提出了一个值得探究的后果,如果你的听众也同意这一点,那么你就成功了。

If you think it’s im­port­ant to an­swer that second ques­tion, you’ve stated a con­sequence that makes your prob­lem worth pur­su­ing, and if your audi­ence agrees, you’re in busi­ness.

但如果你设想你的听众再次提出这样的问题:“如果我们现在对浪漫爱情的描绘方式与过去是否有所不同,那又该如何呢?”你必须提出一个更宏大的问题,你希望你的听众会认为这个问题意义重大:

But what if you ima­gine your audi­ence again ask­ing, So what if I don’t know whether we now de­pict ro­mantic love dif­fer­ently than we once did? You have to pose a yet lar­ger ques­tion that you hope your audi­ence will think is sig­ni­fic­ant:

回答“我们对浪漫爱情的描绘发生了怎样的变化”这个问题,有助于我们回答一个更重要的问题:我们的文化如何塑造年轻男女对婚姻和家庭的期望? (由此引申出一个更广泛、更重要的问题)

An­swer­ing the ques­tion of how our de­pic­tions of ro­mantic love have changedsecond ques­tion helps us an­swer an even more im­port­ant one: How does our cul­ture shape the ex­pect­a­tions of young men and wo­men about mar­riage and fam­il­ies?con­sequence/lar­ger, more im­port­ant ques­tion

如果你想象你的听众再次问“那又怎样?”,你可能会想,找错听众了。但如果你不得不面对这样的听众,你只能再试一次:好吧,如果我们不回答这个问题,我们就无法……

If you ima­gine your audi­ence again ask­ing, So what?, you might think, Wrong audi­ence. But if that’s the audi­ence you’re stuck with, you just have to try again: Well, if we don’t an­swer that ques­tion, we can’t . . .

学术界之外的人常常认为,学术专家们问的问题荒谬至极:跳房子游戏是怎么起源的?但他们却没意识到,研究人员之所以想要解答这类问题,是为了解答第二个更重要的问题。对于那些关心民间游戏如何影响儿童社会发展的人来说,未知带来的概念性后果恰恰证明了研究的必要性。如果我们能够发现儿童民间游戏的起源,就能更好地理解游戏是如何帮助儿童进行社会化的;而且,在你问之前,我先解释一下,一旦我们了解了这一点,就能更好地理解……

Those out­side an aca­demic field of­ten think that its spe­cial­ists ask ri­dicu­lously trivial ques­tions: How did hopscotch ori­gin­ate? But they fail to real­ize that re­search­ers want to an­swer a ques­tion like that so that they can an­swer a second, more im­port­ant one. For those who care about the way folk games in­flu­ence the so­cial de­vel­op­ment of chil­dren, the con­cep­tual con­sequences of not know­ing jus­tify the re­search. If we can dis­cover how chil­dren’s folk games ori­gin­ate, we can bet­ter un­der­stand how games so­cial­ize chil­dren, and, be­fore you ask, once we know that, we can bet­ter un­der­stand . . .

2.2  区分“纯粹”研究和“应用”研究

2.2  Dis­tin­guish­ing Between “Pure” and “Ap­plied” Re­search

我们之前将真正的研究定义为由事先未知答案的问题所驱动的研究。我们可以区分两种类型。当研究探讨的是一个概念性问题,它不直接影响现实世界的任何实际情况,仅仅增进研究者群体的理解时,我们称之为纯粹研究。当研究探讨的概念性问题确实具有实际意义时,我们称之为应用研究。你可以通过查看定义项目的三个步骤中的最后一个步骤来判断研究是纯粹研究还是应用研究。它指的是“知道”还是“做”

Earlier we de­scribed au­then­tic re­search as re­search mo­tiv­ated by ques­tions whose an­swers aren’t known in ad­vance. We can dis­tin­guish two types. We call re­search pure when it ad­dresses a con­cep­tual prob­lem that does not bear dir­ectly on any prac­tical situ­ation in the world, when it only im­proves the un­der­stand­ing of a com­munity of re­search­ers. We call re­search ap­plied when it ad­dresses a con­cep­tual prob­lem that does have prac­tical con­sequences. You can tell whether re­search is pure or ap­plied by look­ing at the last of the three steps de­fin­ing your pro­ject. Does it refer to know­ing or do­ing?

  1. 1.主题:我正在研究宇宙某一区域的电磁辐射。
    1. 2.问题:因为我想知道天空中有多少个星系,
      1. 3.意义:为了帮助理解宇宙是会永远膨胀还是最终坍缩成一个点。
  2. 1. Topic: I am study­ing the elec­tro­mag­netic ra­di­ation in a sec­tion of the uni­verse
    1. 2. Ques­tion: be­cause I want to find out how many galax­ies are in the sky,
      1. 3. Sig­ni­fic­ance: in or­der to help un­der­stand whether the uni­verse will ex­pand forever or even­tu­ally col­lapse into a point.

那纯粹是研究,因为步骤 3 只涉及理解。

That is pure re­search be­cause step 3 refers only to un­der­stand­ing.

在应用研究中,第二步仍然指的是了解或理解,但第三步指的是实践:

In ap­plied re­search, the second step still refers to know­ing or un­der­stand­ing, but that third step refers to do­ing:

  1. 1.主题:我正在研究韦伯望远镜的读数与地球上的望远镜对同一恒星的测量读数有何不同。
    1. 2.问题:因为我想了解大气层对电磁辐射测量结果的干扰程度,
      1. 3.实际意义:以便天文学家能够利用地球上的望远镜的数据更电磁辐射的密度。
  2. 1. Topic: I am study­ing how read­ings from the Webb tele­scope dif­fer from read­ings for the same stars meas­ured by earth­bound tele­scopes
    1. 2. Ques­tion: be­cause I want to find out how much the at­mo­sphere dis­torts meas­ure­ments of elec­tro­mag­netic ra­di­ation,
      1. 3. Prac­tical Sig­ni­fic­ance: so that as­tro­nomers can use data from earth­bound tele­scopes to meas­ure more ac­cur­ately the dens­ity of elec­tro­mag­netic ra­di­ation.

这个问题需要应用研究,因为只有当天文学家知道如何解释大气畸变时,他们才能他们想做的事情——更准确地测量光。

That prob­lem calls for ap­plied re­search be­cause only when as­tro­nomers know how to ac­count for at­mo­spheric dis­tor­tion can they do what they want to—meas­ure light more ac­cur­ately.

2.3  将研究与实际后果联系起来

2.3  Con­nect­ing Re­search to Prac­tical Con­sequences

一些经验不足的研究者对纯粹的研究感到不安,因为概念性问题的后果——仅仅是不知道某些东西——太过抽象。由于他们尚未融入一个真正关心理解自身研究领域的群体,他们觉得自己的研究成果没什么用处。因此,他们试图将一些实际意义或结果强加给概念性问题,使其看起来更有价值:

Some in­ex­per­i­enced re­search­ers are un­easy with pure re­search be­cause the con­sequence of a con­cep­tual prob­lem—merely not know­ing some­thing—is so ab­stract. Since they are not yet part of a re­search com­munity that cares deeply about un­der­stand­ing its part of the world, they feel that their find­ings aren’t good for much. So they try to cobble a prac­tical con­sequence or sig­ni­fic­ance on to a con­cep­tual ques­tion to make it seem more sig­ni­fic­ant:

  1. 1.研究主题:我正在研究二战时期“铆钉女工罗西”作为女权主义偶像的演变历程。
    1. 2.研究问题:因为我想了解这个数字是如何以及为什么随着时间的推移而获得一系列含义的。
      1. 3.潜在的实际意义:帮助平面设计师设计更具包容性的政治海报。
  2. 1. Topic: I am study­ing the evol­u­tion of the World War II–era fig­ure Rosie the Riv­eter as a fem­in­ist icon
    1. 2. Re­search Ques­tion: be­cause I want to find out how and why that fig­ure has ac­quired a range of mean­ings over time
      1. 3. Po­ten­tial Prac­tical Sig­ni­fic­ance: to help graphic artists design more in­clus­ive polit­ical posters.

大多数人会认为步骤 2 和步骤 3 之间的联系有点牵强。

Most people would think that the link between steps 2 and 3 is a bit of a stretch.

要设计一个好的应用研究项目,你必须证明步骤 2 中间接问题的答案能够合理地帮助回答步骤 3 中的间接问题。请问自己以下问题:

To for­mu­late a good ap­plied re­search pro­ject, you have to show that the an­swer to the in­dir­ect ques­tion in step 2 plaus­ibly helps an­swer the in­dir­ect ques­tion in step 3. Ask this ques­tion:

  • (a)如果我的受众想要实现____________的目标[陈述你在步骤3中的目标],
  • (a) If my audi­ence wants to achieve the goal of ____________ [state your ob­ject­ive from step 3],
  • (b) 如果他们发现____________,他们会认为自己能做到吗?[请陈述你在第二步中提出的问题]
  • (b) would they think that they could do it if they found out ____________? [state your ques­tion from step 2]

试试用这个测试方法来解答这道应用天文学问题:

Try that test on this ap­plied as­tro­nomy prob­lem:

  • (a)如果我的听众想要利用地球上的望远镜的数据来更准确地测量电磁辐射的密度,
  • (a) If my audi­ence wants to use data from earth­bound tele­scopes to meas­ure more ac­cur­ately the dens­ity of elec­tro­mag­netic ra­di­ation,
  • (b)如果他们知道大气层对测量结果的扭曲程度有多大,他们会认为自己可以做到吗?
  • (b) would they think that they could if they knew how much the at­mo­sphere dis­torts meas­ure­ments?

答案似乎是肯定的

The an­swer would seem to be Yes.

现在来试试“铆工罗西”的问题:

Now try the test on the Rosie the Riv­eter prob­lem:

  • (a)如果我的受众想要设计更好的政治竞选海报,
  • (a) If my audi­ence wants to design bet­ter polit­ical cam­paign posters,
  • (b)如果他们知道“铆钉女工罗西”的形象是如何以及为什么随着时间的推移而获得各种含义的,他们会认为自己可以做到吗?
  • (b) would they think they could if they knew how and why the fig­ure of Rosie the Riv­eter ac­quired a range of mean­ings over time?

答案很可能是否定的。我们或许能看出一些联系,但这有点牵强。

The an­swer would prob­ably be No. We may see a con­nec­tion, but it’s a stretch.

如果你认为解决概念性问题的方法可能适用于实际问题,请将你的项目定位为纯研究,然后将应用部分作为第四步添加

If you think that the solu­tion to your con­cep­tual prob­lem might ap­ply to a prac­tical one, for­mu­late your pro­ject as pure re­search, then add your ap­plic­a­tion as a fourth step:

  1. 1.研究主题:我正在研究二战时期“铆钉女工罗西”作为女权主义偶像的演变历程。
    1. 2.概念性问题:因为我想了解这个数字是如何以及为什么随着时间的推移而获得一系列含义的。
      1. 3.概念意义:理解图像如何被重新用于新的目的,以及图像如何具有许多观众没有意识到的排他性含义。
        1. 4.潜在的实际应用:以便平面设计师能够设计更具包容性的政治海报。
  2. 1. Topic: I am study­ing the evol­u­tion of the World War II–era fig­ure Rosie the Riv­eter as a fem­in­ist icon
    1. 2. Con­cep­tual Ques­tion: be­cause I want to find out how and why that fig­ure has ac­quired a range of mean­ings over time
      1. 3. Con­cep­tual Sig­ni­fic­ance: to un­der­stand how im­ages can be re­pur­posed to new ends and also have ex­clu­sion­ary mean­ings that many view­ers didn’t re­cog­nize,
        1. 4. Po­ten­tial Prac­tical Ap­plic­a­tion: so that graphic artists can design more in­clus­ive polit­ical posters.

然而,在引言部分提出问题时,应将其描述为一个纯粹的概念性研究问题,其意义在于概念层面的推论。然后,等到结论部分再提出其实际应用。(更多内容请参见第14章。)

When you state your prob­lem in your in­tro­duc­tion, how­ever, present it as a purely con­cep­tual re­search prob­lem whose sig­ni­fic­ance is in its con­cep­tual con­sequences. Then wait un­til your con­clu­sion to sug­gest its prac­tical ap­plic­a­tion. (For more on this, see chapter 14.)

人文领域的大多数研究项目以及自然科学和社会科学领域的许多研究项目都与日常生活没有直接联系。但正如“纯粹”一词所暗示的那样,许多研究者认为这类研究比应用研究更受重视。他们相信,追求“为知识而求知”体现了人类的最高使命:求知若渴,并非为了金钱或权力,而是为了超越世俗的福祉,增进理解,丰富精神生活。

Most re­search pro­jects in the hu­man­it­ies and many in the nat­ural and so­cial sci­ences have no dir­ect ap­plic­a­tion to daily life. But as the term pure sug­gests, many re­search­ers value such re­search more than they do ap­plied re­search. They be­lieve that the pur­suit of know­ledge “for its own sake” re­flects hu­man­ity’s highest call­ing: to know more, not for the sake of money or power, but for the tran­scend­ental good of greater un­der­stand­ing and a richer life of the mind.

正如您可能已经猜到的,我们致力于纯粹的研究。但对于应用研究而言,只要研究方法得当,不受恶意动机的影响,研究本身也是有益的。例如,潜在的盈利可能损害化学和生物科学领域纯粹研究和应用研究的完整性,因为它不仅会影响一些研究人员选择解决的问题,还会影响他们的解决方案:告诉我们要寻找什么,我们就能找到!这种情况引发了伦理问题,我们将在第17章“研究伦理”中探讨这些问题。

As you may have guessed, we are deeply com­mit­ted to pure re­search, but also to ap­plied—so long as the re­search is done well and is not cor­rup­ted by ma­lign motives. For ex­ample, the po­ten­tial for profit might com­prom­ise the in­teg­rity of both pure and ap­plied re­search in the chem­ical and bio­lo­gical sci­ences be­cause it can in­flu­ence not only what prob­lems some re­search­ers choose to ad­dress but also their solu­tions: Tell us what to look for, and we’ll provide it! Such situ­ations raise eth­ical ques­tions that we touch on in chapter 17, “The Eth­ics of Re­search.”

2.4  寻找一个好的研究问题

2.4  Find­ing a Good Re­search Prob­lem

伟大的研究者之所以能脱颖而出,是因为他们拥有卓越的才华、敏锐的洞察力,或者仅仅是凭借偶然的运气,发现一个问题,而这个问题的解决方式能让我们所有人以全新的视角看待世界。当我们偶然遇到一个好问题,或者问题主动找上门来时,我们很容易就能识别出来。但研究者常常在不了解真正问题是什么的情况下就开始一个项目。有时,他们只是希望更清晰地定义一个难题。事实上,那些发现新问题或阐明旧问题的人,往往比那些解决已定义问题的人对所在领域做出更大的贡献。有些研究者甚至因为推翻了他们原本想要证明的看似合理的假设而名声大噪。

What dis­tin­guishes great re­search­ers from the rest of us is the bril­liance, knack, or just dumb luck of stum­bling over a prob­lem whose solu­tion makes all of us see the world in a new way. It’s easy to re­cog­nize a good prob­lem when we bump into it, or it bumps into us. But re­search­ers of­ten be­gin a pro­ject without know­ing what their real prob­lem is. Some­times they hope just to define a puzzle more clearly. In­deed, those who find a new prob­lem or cla­rify an old one of­ten make a big­ger con­tri­bu­tion to their field than those who solve a prob­lem already defined. Some re­search­ers have even won fame for dis­prov­ing a plaus­ible hy­po­thesis that they had set out to prove.

所以,如果在项目初期你无法完全明确问题所在,也不要气馁。我们当中很少有人能做到这一点。但及早思考问题可以为你节省后续大量的工作时间(或许还能避免临近尾声时的慌乱)。它还能让你进入一种对后续工作至关重要的思维状态。以下是一些帮助你识别和完善好问题的方法。

So don’t be dis­cour­aged if you can’t for­mu­late your prob­lem fully at the out­set of your pro­ject. Few of us can. But think­ing about it early will save you hours of work along the way (and per­haps panic to­ward the end). It also gets you into a frame of mind cru­cial to ad­vanced work. Here are some things you can do to identify and re­fine a good prob­lem.

2.4.1  寻求帮助

2.4.1  Ask for Help

像经验丰富的研究人员那样做:与同事、老师、同学、亲戚、朋友、邻居——任何可能感兴趣的人交谈。为什么有人会想要你问题的答案?他们会用这个答案做什么?答案又会引发哪些新的问题?

Do what ex­per­i­enced re­search­ers do: talk to col­leagues, teach­ers, class­mates, re­l­at­ives, friends, neigh­bors—any­one who might be in­ter­ested. Why would any­one want an an­swer to your ques­tion? What would they do with it? What new ques­tions might an an­swer raise?

如果你可以自由地研究任何问题,那就找一个大问题的一部分,哪怕只是其中的一小部分。虽然你可能无法解决整个大问题,但你所研究的这部分也会对整个问题产生重要影响。(你还能借此机会了解你所在领域的问题,这可不是什么小好处。)如果你是学生,可以问问老师他们在研究什么,以及你是否可以参与其中的一部分。不要让他们的建议左右你的决定。你的研究存在局限性。没有什么比学生仅仅按照老师的建议去做,而没有做任何额外的工作更让老师感到沮丧的了。老师希望你用他们的建议来启发你的思考,而不是止步于此。没有什么比你运用他们的建议发现他们意想不到的东西更让老师高兴的了。

If you are free to work on any prob­lem, look for a small one that is part of a big­ger one. Though you won’t solve the big one, your small piece of it will in­herit some of its lar­ger sig­ni­fic­ance. (You will also edu­cate your­self about the prob­lems of your field, no small be­ne­fit.) If you are a stu­dent, ask your teach­ers what they are work­ing on and whether you can work on part of it. Don’t let their sug­ges­tions define the lim­its of your re­search. Noth­ing dis­cour­ages a teacher more than a stu­dent who does ex­actly what is sug­ges­ted and no more. Teach­ers want you to use their sug­ges­tions to start your think­ing, not end it. Noth­ing makes teach­ers hap­pier than when you use their sug­ges­tions to find some­thing they never ex­pec­ted.

2.4.2  阅读过程中寻找问题

2.4.2  Look for Prob­lems as You Read

你也可以在资料来源中发现研究问题。你在这些资料中发现了哪些矛盾、不一致或不完整的解释?不妨先假设其他人也会或应该有同样的感受。许多研究项目都始于与资料来源作者的一场假想对话:“等等,你忽略了……”。但在你着手纠正某个漏洞或误解之前,务必确认它是真实存在的,而不仅仅是你自己的误读。无数的研究论文都反驳过一些根本没人提出过的观点。(在4.3节中,我们列举了作者们为了发现资料来源中的问题而常用的几种“方法”,这些方法都类似于“资料来源认为X,但我认为Y”。)

You can also find re­search prob­lems in your sources. Where in them do you see con­tra­dic­tions, in­con­sist­en­cies, in­com­plete ex­plan­a­tions? Tent­at­ively as­sume that oth­ers would or should feel the same. Many re­search pro­jects be­gin with an ima­gin­ary con­ver­sa­tion with the au­thor of a source: Wait a minute, you’re ig­nor­ing . . . But be­fore you set out to cor­rect a gap or mis­un­der­stand­ing, be sure it’s real, not just your own mis­read­ing. Count­less re­search pa­pers have re­futed a point that no one ever made. (In 4.3 we list sev­eral com­mon “moves” that writers make to find a prob­lem in a source, vari­ations on Source thinks X, but I think Y.)

一旦你认为自己发现了一个真正的谜题或错误,不要仅仅指出来就完事。如果某个资料来源说的是X,而你认为​​的是Y,那么你可能遇到了研究问题,但前提是你能证明那些认为X的人也误解了某些更深层次的问题。

Once you think you’ve found a real puzzle or er­ror, do more than just point to it. If a source says X and you think Y, you may have a re­search prob­lem, but only if you can show that those who think X mis­un­der­stand some lar­ger is­sue as well.

最后,仔细阅读资料的最后几页。许多研究者会在那里提出更多需要解答的问题。以下段落的作者刚刚解释完19世纪俄罗斯农民的生活如何影响他们作为士兵的表现:

Fi­nally, read the last few pages of your sources closely. That’s where many re­search­ers sug­gest more ques­tions that need an­swers. The au­thor of the fol­low­ing para­graph had just fin­ished ex­plain­ing how the life of nine­teenth-cen­tury Rus­sian peas­ants in­flu­enced their per­form­ance as sol­diers:

正如士兵的和平时期经历影响了他们在战场上的表现一样,军官的经历也必然影响了他们在战场上的表现。事实上,日俄战争后,一些评论家将俄军的战败归咎于军官在日常事务中养成的习惯。无论如何,为了了解沙皇时期军官在和平时期和战争时期的服役习惯,我们需要对军官队伍进行结构性分析——或者说,一种人类学分析——就像本文对士兵所做的那样。 [重点为原文所有]

And just as the sol­dier’s peace­time ex­per­i­ence in­flu­enced his bat­tle­field per­form­ance, so must the ex­per­i­ence of the of­ficer corps have in­flu­enced theirs. In­deed, a few com­ment­at­ors after the Russo-Ja­pan­ese War blamed the Rus­sian de­feat on habits ac­quired by of­ficers in the course of their eco­nomic chores. In any event, to ap­pre­ci­ate the ser­vice habits of Tsar­ist of­ficers in peace and war, we need a struc­tural—if you will, an an­thro­po­lo­gical—ana­lysis of the of­ficer corps like that offered here for en­lis­ted per­son­nel. [our em­phasis]

最后一句话引出了一个新问题,等着你去解决。

That last sen­tence of­fers a new prob­lem wait­ing for you to tackle.

2.4.3  审视你自己的结论

2.4.3  Look at Your Own Con­clu­sion

批判性阅读也能帮助你在自己的草稿中发现好的研究问题。我们往往在写作的最后几页思路最为清晰,因为正是在这段时间里,我们会提出一些起初并未预料到的观点。如果在早期草稿中你突然想到一个意料之外的观点,不妨问问自己,它可能回答了什么问题。这听起来或许有些矛盾,但你可能已经回答了一个你尚未提出的问题,从而解决了一个你尚未提出的难题。你的任务就是找出这个难题究竟是什么。

Crit­ical read­ing can also help you dis­cover a good re­search prob­lem in your own drafts. We of­ten do our best think­ing in the last few pages that we write be­cause it is there that we for­mu­late claims we did not an­ti­cip­ate when we star­ted. If in an early draft you ar­rive at an unanti­cip­ated claim, ask your­self what ques­tion it might an­swer. Para­dox­ical as it might seem, you may have answered a ques­tion that you have not yet asked and thereby solved a prob­lem that you have not yet posed. Your task is to fig­ure out what that prob­lem might be.

2.5  学习如何处理问题

2.5  Learn­ing to Work with Prob­lems

经验丰富的研究人员渴望发现新的问题并加以解决。更大的梦想是解决一个甚至无人知晓的问题。然而,只有当其他人认为(或被说服)这个问题需要解决时,这个新问题才具有价值。因此,经验丰富的研究人员在面对一个问题时首先应该问的不是“我能解决它吗?”,而是“其他人会认为它需要解决吗?”

Ex­per­i­enced re­search­ers dream of find­ing new prob­lems to solve. A still big­ger dream is to solve a prob­lem that no one even knew they had. But that new prob­lem isn’t worth much un­til oth­ers think (or can be per­suaded) that it needs solv­ing. So the first ques­tion an ex­per­i­enced re­searcher should ask about a prob­lem is not Can I solve it? but Will oth­ers think it should be solved?

没人指望你第一次就能做到所有这些。但你应该开始培养一些思维习惯,为那一刻做好准备。研究不仅仅是收集和记录事实。试着提出一个认为值得解答的问题,这样将来你就能找到别人认为值得解决的问题。在你做到这一点之前,你可能会面临研究者最不愿遇到的回应——不是“我不同意” ,而是“我不在乎”(参见 I.4.3、6.2 和 9.1)。

No one ex­pects you to do all that the first time out. But you should be­gin to de­velop men­tal habits that will pre­pare you for that mo­ment. Re­search is more than just ac­cu­mu­lat­ing and re­port­ing facts. Try to for­mu­late a ques­tion that you think is worth an­swer­ing, so that down the road, you’ll know how to find a prob­lem that oth­ers think is worth solv­ing. Un­til you can do that, you risk the worst re­sponse a re­searcher can get—not I don’t agree but I don’t care (see I.4.3, 6.2, and 9.1).

如今,所有这些关于学术研究的空谈似乎与某些人所谓的“现实世界”脱节。但在商业和政府、法律和医学、政治和国际外交领域,没有什么技能比发现问题并能清晰阐述问题的能力更重要,这种能力不仅能让其他人关心问题,还能让他们相信问题可以解决,尤其是由你来解决。如果你能在拜占庭陶器课堂上做到这一点,那么你也能在商业街或华尔街的办公室里做到这一点,甚至在自家厨房的餐桌上通过视频会议做到这一点。

By now, all this airy talk about aca­demic re­search may seem dis­con­nec­ted from what some call the “real world.” But in busi­ness and gov­ern­ment, in law and medi­cine, in polit­ics and in­ter­na­tional dip­lomacy, no skill is val­ued more highly than the abil­ity to re­cog­nize a prob­lem, then to ar­tic­u­late it in a way that con­vinces oth­ers both to care about it and to be­lieve it can be solved, es­pe­cially by you. If you can do that in a class on Byz­antine pot­tery, you can do it in an of­fice on Main Street or Wall Street, or in a video con­fer­ence from your kit­chen table.

▶ 小贴士:如何利用经验不足的机会

▶ Quick Tip: Mak­ing an Op­por­tun­ity of In­ex­per­i­ence

当我们开始涉足一个全新的领域,面对我们并不完全了解的价值观、关注点、思维方式和论证方法时,都会感到焦虑。事实上,即使是我们这些作者,在开始撰写关于新主题的新项目时,也仍然会经历这种新手的焦虑。这种感觉有时难以避免,但有一些方法可以帮助我们应对:

We all feel anxious when we start work in a new field whose val­ues, con­cerns, and ways of think­ing and ar­guing we don’t en­tirely un­der­stand. In fact, we au­thors still ex­per­i­ence that new­comer’s anxi­ety when we be­gin new kinds of pro­jects on new top­ics. You can’t avoid ex­per­i­en­cing that feel­ing at times, but there are ways to man­age it:

  • 要  知道,不确定感和焦虑感是自然且不可避免的。这些感觉并不代表能力不足,而只是缺乏经验。
  • ▪  Know that un­cer­tainty and anxi­ety are nat­ural and in­ev­it­able. Those feel­ings don’t sig­nal in­com­pet­ence, only in­ex­per­i­ence.
  • ▪  通过边写边研究来掌控你的主题。坚持写日记,反思你的进展。这种写作方式不仅能帮助你理解阅读内容,还能激发你的思考。越早开始写作,哪怕只是粗略的草稿,就越容易面对令人望而生畏的初稿。
  • ▪  Get con­trol over your topic by writ­ing about it along the way. Keep a journal in which you re­flect on your pro­gress. This kind of writ­ing not only helps you un­der­stand what you read but stim­u­lates your think­ing about it. The more you write early on, no mat­ter how sketch­ily, the easier it will be to face that in­tim­id­at­ing first draft.
  • ▪  对信息来源做出回应,而不仅仅是堆砌它们。当你发现有用的信息来源时,不要只是拍照、截图或将其留在浏览器标签页中。这样做虽然简单,但并不能促进你的思考。此外,还要撰写摘要或评论。列出该信息来源引发你思考的任何问题。
  • ▪  Re­spond to your sources; don’t just ac­cu­mu­late them. When you dis­cover a use­ful source, don’t just snap a photo of it, grab a screen­shot of it, or leave it open in a browser tab. That’s easy, but it doesn’t ad­vance your think­ing. In ad­di­tion, write a sum­mary or cri­tique. List any ques­tions that source raises in your mind.
  • 将  任务分解成易于管理的小步骤,并明白这些步骤是相辅相成的。一旦你提出了一个好问题,你就能更有效地撰写和修改初稿。你越是预先设想如何撰写和修改初稿,你的写作效率就越高。
  • ▪  Break the task into man­age­able steps and know that they are mu­tu­ally sup­port­ive. Once you for­mu­late a good ques­tion, you’ll draft and re­vise more ef­fect­ively. The more you an­ti­cip­ate how you will write and re­vise a first draft, the more ef­fect­ively you will pro­duce it.
  • 如果  你是一名学生,请相信你的老师会理解你的困难。他们希望你成功,你可以期待他们的帮助。你也可以向图书馆员或学校的写作中心寻求帮助。
  • ▪  If you are a stu­dent, count on your teach­ers to un­der­stand your struggles. They want you to suc­ceed, and you can ex­pect their help. You can also turn to lib­rar­i­ans or your cam­pus writ­ing cen­ter.
  • ▪  设定切合实际的目标。即使听众不认同你的观点,但如果他们认可你的论证有力,那么你就做了一件意义非凡的事情。
  • ▪  Set real­istic goals. You do some­thing sig­ni­fic­ant when, even if your audi­ence doesn’t agree with your claim, they re­cog­nize that you ar­gued it well.
  • 最重要的是  ,要认识到这种挣扎的本质——它是一次学习经历。为了应对焦虑并克服所有初学者都会遇到的困难,要学习成功研究人员的做法,尤其是在感到沮丧的时候:回顾你的计划和已撰写的内容,然后继续前进。成功的研究人员知道,虽然没有绝对的把握,但大多数精心构思的研究项目最终都会取得不错的成果。或许只是“还不错——考虑到种种因素”,但很可能远不止于此。
  • ▪  Most im­port­ant, re­cog­nize the struggle for what it is—a learn­ing ex­per­i­ence. To man­age the anxi­ety and over­come the struggles that all be­gin­ners face, do what suc­cess­ful re­search­ers do, es­pe­cially when dis­cour­aged: re­view your plan and what you’ve writ­ten, then press on. Suc­cess­ful re­search­ers know that while there are no sure things, most well-con­ceived re­search pro­jects will turn out OK. Per­haps only “OK—con­sid­er­ing,” but prob­ably a lot bet­ter than that.

第二部分

Part II

资源和资料

Sources and Re­sources

序幕

Pro­logue

资料来源和权威研究

Sources and Authentic Research

研究的形式多种多样,取决于研究领域和提出的问题。一些研究者在实验室进行实验;一些观察自然界或人类行为;一些通过调查或访谈收集数据;还有一些分析或解读文本、听觉、视觉或实物资料,等等。接下来的两章,我们将重点讨论基于资料的研究。之所以如此,是因为运用资料是最常见的研究形式,通常也是我们大多数人最先学习的研究方法。第三章我们将重点讨论如何查找和评估资料的相关性和可靠性。第四,我们将重点讨论如何准备在论证中使用这些资料。虽然我们将这些步骤视为独立的步骤,但实际上它们是相互交织的。在真正的研究中,你不会先找到所有资料,然后再阅读并做笔记。相反,一旦你找到一个好的资料,它就会引导你找到其他资料。你会继续阅读和探索,并运用在此过程中获得的知识来完善你的研究,最终找到问题的答案。这种寻找、评估和利用信息来源的循环方法是所有真实研究的特征。

Re­search can take many forms, de­pend­ing on the field of study and the ques­tions that you ask. Some re­search­ers do ex­per­i­ments in labor­at­or­ies; some ob­serve the nat­ural world or hu­man be­ha­vior; some col­lect data from people through sur­veys or in­ter­views; some ana­lyze or in­ter­pret tex­tual, aural, visual, or ma­ter­ial sources, among other meth­ods. In the next two chapters, we fo­cus on re­search based on sources. We do so be­cause work­ing with sources is the most com­mon form of re­search and typ­ic­ally the first kind most of us learn. In chapter 3, we fo­cus on loc­at­ing and eval­u­at­ing sources for their rel­ev­ance and re­li­ab­il­ity. In chapter 4, we fo­cus on pre­par­ing to use these sources in ar­gu­ments. While we treat these as sep­ar­ate steps, in real­ity they are in­ter­twined. In au­then­tic re­search, you don’t first find all your sources, then read and take notes on them. Rather, once you find one good source, it will lead you to oth­ers. You read and ex­plore fur­ther us­ing the know­ledge you gain along the way to re­fine your in­quiry and in­form an an­swer to your ques­tion. This cyc­lic ap­proach to loc­at­ing, eval­u­at­ing, and en­ga­ging sources is char­ac­ter­istic of all au­then­tic re­search.

3 寻找和评估信息来源

3  Find­ing and Eval­u­at­ing Sources

如果您是研究新手,并且预计大部分资料将来自图书馆或网络,本章将帮助您制定研究计划。如果您经验丰富,可以直接跳到下一章。

If you are a new re­searcher and ex­pect to find most of your sources in your lib­rary or on­line, this chapter will help you de­velop a plan for your re­search. If you are more ex­per­i­enced, you might skip to the next chapter.

初学者往往认为研究就是寻找信息来充实论文,尤其是那些他们认为能够支持自己论点的信息。这种研究观是错误的。它假定所有证据都是一样的,并且认为研究就是按照老师布置的作业要求找到足够多的资料来源。当然,在某些情况下,老师会要求学生使用最少数量的资料来源,或者只使用学术资料,或者避免使用维基百科。为了规划你的研究项目,你必须了解哪些类型的材料可以作为资料来源,以及如何在你的论证中使用它们。

Be­gin­ning re­search­ers of­ten think of re­search as just find­ing in­form­a­tion to put into their pa­pers, es­pe­cially in­form­a­tion they be­lieve backs up their ar­gu­ments. This view of re­search is wrong. It as­sumes that all evid­ence is the same and that re­search in­volves find­ing enough sources as spe­cified by an as­sign­ment from a teacher. In some cases, of course, stu­dents are told to use a min­imum num­ber of sources or to use only schol­arly sources or to avoid Wiki­pe­dia as a source. To plan your re­search pro­ject, you must un­der­stand what kinds of ma­ter­i­als serve as sources and how to use them in your ar­gu­ment.

3.1  理解三种信息来源

3.1  Un­der­stand­ing Three Types of Sources

传统上,资料来源分为三类:一手资料、二手资料和三手资料。它们的界限并不清晰,但了解这些分类有助于你规划研究。它们的主要区别在于研究者如何使用它们。

Sources are con­ven­tion­ally cat­egor­ized into three kinds: primary, sec­ond­ary, and ter­tiary. Their bound­ar­ies are fuzzy, but know­ing these cat­egor­ies can help you plan your re­search. They dif­fer primar­ily in the uses to which a re­searcher puts them.

3.1.1  证据的主要来源

3.1.1  Primary Sources for Evid­ence

原始资料是指提供“原始数据”或证据的“原始材料”,您将使用这些材料来发展和检验您的假设或主张,并最终支持您的论证理由。不同领域的原始资料定义差异很大。在历史学中,原始资料是指直接来自史料或文献的文物。你研究的时期或事件可以是信件、日记、物品、地图,甚至是衣物。在文学或哲学领域,你的主要原始资料通常是你正在分析的文本(例如,莎士比亚的《麦克白》或汉娜·阿伦特的《人的境况》) ,你的数据就是文本上的文字。在艺术批评中,你的原始资料是你所解读的艺术作品。在社会科学领域,例如社会学或政治学,人口普查或调查数据也属于原始资料,通过访谈、田野调查(民族志观察)或实验获得的数据也属于原始资料。在自然科学领域,原创研究报告有时也被视为原始资料(尽管科学家本身很少使用这个术语)。

Primary sources are “ori­ginal” ma­ter­i­als that provide you with the “raw data” or evid­ence you will use to de­velop and test your hy­po­thesis or claim and ul­ti­mately to sup­port the reas­ons in your ar­gu­ment. What counts as a primary source var­ies sig­ni­fic­antly by field. In his­tory, primary sources are ar­ti­facts or doc­u­ments that come dir­ectly from the period or event you are study­ing: let­ters, di­ar­ies, ob­jects, maps, even cloth­ing. In lit­er­at­ure or philo­sophy, your main primary source is usu­ally the text (e.g., Shakespeare’s Macbeth or Han­nah Arendt’s The Hu­man Con­di­tion) you are ana­lyz­ing, and your data are the words on the page. In arts cri­ti­cism, your primary source would be the work of art you are in­ter­pret­ing. In so­cial sci­ences, such as so­ci­ology or polit­ical sci­ence, census or sur­vey data would also count as primary, as could data ob­tained through in­ter­views, field­work (eth­no­graphic ob­ser­va­tion), or ex­per­i­ments. In the nat­ural sci­ences, re­ports of ori­ginal re­search are some­times char­ac­ter­ized as primary sources (al­though sci­ent­ists them­selves rarely use that term).

3.1.2  向其他研究者学习的二手资料

3.1.2  Sec­ond­ary Sources for Learn­ing from Other Re­search­ers

二手资料是指基于一手资料撰写,面向学术或专业读者的书籍、文章或报告。某一领域的二手资料总和有时被称为该领域的文献。最佳的二手资料包括来自知名大学出版社的书籍以及经过同行评审的文章或报告,这意味着它们在出版前已经过该领域专家的审查。研究人员阅读二手资料是为了了解各自领域的最新进展,并以此激发自身的思考。构建新研究问题的标准方法是挑战或拓展他人已发表在二手资料中的结论或方法。二手资料还包括收录该领域学者文章的专业百科全书和词典。二手资料过去主要通过高校图书馆获取,但现在也可以通过在线目录和数据库获取,例如 EBSCOhost 和 Google Scholar。

Sec­ond­ary sources are books, art­icles, or re­ports that are based on primary sources and are in­ten­ded for schol­arly or pro­fes­sional audi­ences. The body of sec­ond­ary sources in a field is some­times called that field’s lit­er­at­ure. The best sec­ond­ary sources are books from reput­able uni­ver­sity presses and art­icles or re­ports that have been peer-re­viewed, mean­ing that they were vet­ted by ex­perts in the field be­fore they were pub­lished. Re­search­ers read sec­ond­ary sources to keep up with de­vel­op­ments in their fields and, in this way, to stim­u­late their own think­ing. The stand­ard way of fram­ing new re­search prob­lems is to chal­lenge or build on the con­clu­sions or meth­ods of oth­ers, as presen­ted in sec­ond­ary sources they have writ­ten. Sec­ond­ary sources also in­clude spe­cial­ized en­cyc­lo­pe­dias and dic­tion­ar­ies that of­fer es­says by schol­ars in a field. Sec­ond­ary sources were once avail­able mainly through col­lege and uni­ver­sity lib­rar­ies, but they are also avail­able through on­line cata­logs and data­bases, in­clud­ing EB­SCO­host and Google Scholar.

你可以出于以下三个主要目的使用二手资料:

You can use sec­ond­ary sources for three main pur­poses:

  1. 1.了解其他人对你研究主题的论述。二手资料是了解其他研究者对你研究主题的看法以及他们认为哪些问题重要的最佳途径。(不仅要关注他们提出的研究问题,还要关注他们提出的任何其他问题。)你或许可以借鉴其中某个问题来构建你的研究问题。
  2. 1. To learn what oth­ers have writ­ten about your topic. Sec­ond­ary sources are the best way to learn what other re­search­ers have said about your topic as well as what kinds of ques­tions they think are im­port­ant. (Pay at­ten­tion not only to the re­search ques­tions they ad­dress but also to any ad­di­tional ques­tions they pose.) You may be able to model your ques­tion on one of these.
  3. 2.寻找其他观点。初学者有时会认为,如果提及与自己观点相悖的想法,就会削弱自己的论证。但事实恰恰相反:当你承认对立观点时,不仅表明你已经考虑过这些观点,也表明你能够回应它们(参见第九章)。只有当你设想并回应读者可能提出的问题和异议时,你的研究才算完整。你可以在二手资料中找到这些。他们提出了哪些与你的观点不同的替代方案?他们引用了哪些你必须承认的证据?更重要的是,你可以利用他人的论点来检验和完善自己的观点。只有了解一个理性的人为何会持有不同观点,你才能真正理解自己的想法。因此,在寻找资料时,不仅要寻找支持你观点的资料,还要寻找挑战你观点的资料。
  4. 2. To find other points of view. Be­gin­ning re­search­ers some­times be­lieve they will weaken their case if they men­tion ideas that con­tra­dict their own. The op­pos­ite is ac­tu­ally true: when you ac­know­ledge op­pos­ing views, you show your audi­ence not only that you have con­sidered those views but also that you can re­spond to them (see chapter 9). Your re­search will be com­plete only when you ima­gine and re­spond to your audi­ence’s pre­dict­able ques­tions and dis­agree­ments. You can find those in sec­ond­ary sources. What al­tern­at­ives to your ideas do they of­fer? What evid­ence do they cite that you must ac­know­ledge? More im­port­ant, you can use the ar­gu­ments of oth­ers to test and im­prove your own. You can­not un­der­stand what you think un­til you know why a reas­on­able per­son might think dif­fer­ently. So as you search for sources, look not only for those that sup­port your views but also for those that chal­lenge them.
  5. 3.寻找研究和写作的范例。你可以利用二手资料,不仅了解其他人对你的主题写了些什么,还要了解他们是如何写作的。如果你的大多数资料都使用了标题、图表和大量的要点,那么你可以考虑也这样做;如果你的资料​​从未使用过这些,你可能就不应该这样做。注意一些细节,例如语言(专业术语还是通俗易懂?)、段落(长段落还是短段落?)以及他们如何使用其他资料(引用还是转述?)。特别注意他们大多使用的证据类型以及他们很少或从未使用的证据类型。你还可以将二手资料作为自己论证的范例。你不能直接照搬资料中的具体论点和理由,但你可以在自己的论证中使用类似的推理方式,甚至可以采用相同的结构。因此,如果你遇到一篇并非完全针对你的主题,但却以类似方式论述的资料,不妨快速浏览一下,看看你能从中学习到哪些论证方法。 (如果您只是引用该来源的逻辑,则无需注明出处;但您可以引用该来源以增强您自身论点的说服力。)
  6. 3. To find mod­els for your own re­search and writ­ing. You can use sec­ond­ary sources to find out not just what oth­ers have writ­ten about your topic but also how they have writ­ten about it. If most of your sources use head­ings, charts, and lots of bul­let points, then you might con­sider do­ing the same; if your sources never use them, you prob­ably shouldn’t. No­tice things like the lan­guage (tech­nical or broadly ac­cess­ible?), para­graphs (long or short?), and how they use other sources (quo­ta­tion or para­phrase?). Pay spe­cial at­ten­tion to the kinds of evid­ence most of them use and the kinds of evid­ence they rarely or never use. You can also use sec­ond­ary sources as mod­els for your own ar­gu­ment. You can­not re­use a source’s spe­cific claims and reas­ons, but you can use the same kind of reas­on­ing in your own ar­gu­ment, per­haps even fol­low­ing the same or­gan­iz­a­tion. So if you come across a source that’s not pre­cisely on your topic but treats one like it, skim it to see what you can learn about how to ar­gue your case. (You don’t have to cite that source if you use only its lo­gic, but you may cite it to give your own more au­thor­ity.)

3.1.3  导论性概述的第三手资料

3.1.3  Ter­tiary Sources for In­tro­duct­ory Over­views

三级文献是指面向普通读者,综合二级文献内容的书籍和文章。它们包括教科书、百科全书(包括维基百科)条目以及面向大众的出版物文章。例如,像《今日心理学》这样的媒体,甚至是一些教育类的YouTube视频,都是不错的参考资料。在研究初期,你可以利用三手资料来大致了解你的研究主题。但如果你要进行学术论证,就应该依赖二手资料,因为这些资料构成了你想要参与的学术讨论。如果在学术论证中引用三手资料,你会显得自己要么是新手,要么是局外人,很多读者不会认真对待你或你的论点。

Ter­tiary sources are books and art­icles that syn­thes­ize sec­ond­ary sources for gen­eral read­ers. They in­clude text­books, art­icles in en­cyc­lo­pe­dias (in­clud­ing Wiki­pe­dia), art­icles in pub­lic­a­tions for broad audi­ences like Psy­cho­logy Today, or even some edu­ca­tional You­Tube videos. In the early stages of re­search, you can use ter­tiary sources to get a broad over­view of your topic. But if you are mak­ing a schol­arly ar­gu­ment, you should rely on sec­ond­ary sources be­cause these make up the con­ver­sa­tion in which you are seek­ing to par­ti­cip­ate. If you cite ter­tiary sources in a schol­arly ar­gu­ment, you will mark your­self as either a novice or an out­sider, and many read­ers won’t take you or your ar­gu­ment ser­i­ously.

这种说法或许听起来不太公平,但并非如此。三手资料并非一定错误——事实上,其中许多出自杰出学者之手——但它们确实存在局限性。由于三手资料面向的是对相关主题不熟悉的广大读者,因此它们有时会过度简化其研究基础,而且容易过时。但如果您牢记这些局限性,三手资料仍然可以成为宝贵的资源:它们可以为您介绍一些您不熟悉的主题,而且如果它们附有参考文献,有时还能引导您找到有价值的二手资料。

This re­sponse may seem un­fair, but it’s not. Ter­tiary sources aren’t ne­ces­sar­ily wrong—many are in fact writ­ten by dis­tin­guished schol­ars—but they are lim­ited. Be­cause they are in­ten­ded for broad audi­ences who are un­fa­mil­iar with the top­ics they ad­dress, ter­tiary sources can some­times over­sim­plify the re­search on which they are based, and they are sus­cept­ible to be­com­ing out­dated. But if you keep these lim­it­a­tions in mind, ter­tiary sources can be valu­able re­sources: they can in­form you about top­ics that are new to you, and if they have bib­li­o­graph­ies, they can some­times lead you to valu­able sec­ond­ary sources.

3.1.4  区分一手资料、二手资料和三手资料

3.1.4  Dif­fer­en­ti­at­ing Primary, Sec­ond­ary, and Ter­tiary Sources

研究人员并非一直将资料分为这三类。一手资料和二手资料的区分起源于19世纪的历史学家,之后扩展到其他领域。三手资料这一类别是后来才加入的。虽然现在这套分类方法已成为学生学习资料分类的标准方式,但它对某些学科的适用性高于其他学科。它非常适用于历史学,因为历史学的一手资料是指与特定历史事件或时期直接相关的材料;也适用于批评学,因为批评学的一手资料是指你所解读的艺术、音乐或文学作品的原作。但对于数学、化学或护理学等学科来说,它的适用性就没那么高了。

Re­search­ers haven’t al­ways di­vided their sources into these three cat­egor­ies. The dis­tinc­tion between primary and sec­ond­ary sources ori­gin­ated with his­tor­i­ans in the nine­teenth cen­tury and then spread to other fields. The cat­egory of ter­tiary sources was ad­ded later. Al­though this scheme is now the stand­ard way that stu­dents are taught to clas­sify sources, it fits some dis­cip­lines bet­ter than oth­ers. It works very well for his­tory, in which primary sources are ma­ter­i­als dir­ectly con­nec­ted to a his­tor­ical event or mo­ment, and for cri­ti­cism, in which primary sources are the ori­ginal works of art, mu­sic, or lit­er­at­ure that you are in­ter­pret­ing. But it works less well for, say, math­em­at­ics, chem­istry, or nurs­ing.

同样重要的是要理解,一级、二级和三级文献的分类并非绝对,而是相对于研究者的研究项目而言的。在大多数情况下,学术期刊上的文章会被视为二级文献。但如果你的研究问题与文章作者或该领域本身相关,例如,如果你正在撰写人类学家玛格丽特·斯图尔特的传记,那么这篇文章就变成了一级文献。米德。同样,如果你研究的是艾略特,那么艾略特的散文《哈姆雷特及其困境》就是一手资料;但如果你研究的是莎士比亚,那么它就是二手资料。百科全书条目通常被认为是三手资料,但如果你研究的是百科全书如何处理性别问题,那么它就变成了一手资料。关于竞选活动的TED演讲在政治学中可能是三手资料,但在媒体研究中可能是一手资料。改变你的研究方向,你就会改变资料的分类。

It is also im­port­ant to un­der­stand that the clas­si­fic­a­tions of primary, sec­ond­ary, and ter­tiary are not ab­so­lute but re­l­at­ive to a re­searcher’s pro­ject. In most in­stances, an art­icle in a schol­arly journal would be con­sidered a sec­ond­ary source. But it would be­come a primary source if your re­search prob­lem con­cerned its au­thor or the field it­self, for ex­ample, if you were writ­ing a bio­graphy of the an­thro­po­lo­gist Mar­garet Mead. Like­wise, T. S. Eliot’s es­say “Ham­let and His Prob­lems” would be a primary source if you were study­ing Eliot but a sec­ond­ary source if you were study­ing Shakespeare. An en­cyc­lo­pe­dia art­icle would usu­ally be con­sidered a ter­tiary source, but it would be­come a primary source if you were study­ing the way that en­cyc­lo­pe­dias deal with gender is­sues. A TED Talk on elec­tion cam­paigns might be a ter­tiary source in polit­ical sci­ence but a primary source in me­dia stud­ies. Change your fo­cus and you change the clas­si­fic­a­tion of your sources.

如果这让你感到困惑,其实不必如此。记住,这些分类只是达到目的的手段。最终,重要的不是你如何称呼你的资料来源,而是你如何有效地运用它们来解决你的研究问题、发展新思路并提出引人入胜的论点。在下一章中,我们将更详细地讨论如何在写作中使用资料来源。

If this is con­fus­ing, it need not be. Re­mem­ber that these clas­si­fic­a­tions are just a means to an end. The im­port­ant thing, ul­ti­mately, is not what you call your sources but how well you use them to ad­dress your re­search prob­lems, de­velop new ideas, and make in­ter­est­ing ar­gu­ments. In the next chapter, we will talk more about how you can use sources in your writ­ing.

3.2  充分利用图书馆

3.2  Mak­ing the Most of the Lib­rary

即使有了互联网,图书馆也无可替代。你不仅可以利用图书馆查找特定主题的资料,还可以探索和深化你想要研究的主题和问题。无论你是亲自前往(我们强烈推荐),还是在线访问,图书馆都是不可或缺的研究工具。鉴于如今网络上信息浩如烟海,你或许会认为,除了高度专业化的研究之外,图书馆已不再必要。然而,事实恰恰相反。信息触手可及的今天,图书馆在研究中的重要性比以往任何时候都更加突出。图书馆不仅让我们能够获取信息,还能确保信息的可靠性。即使你的公共图书馆或大学图书馆规模相对较小,它也能为你打开通往更广泛资源的门户——研究指南、参考书、在线数据库和内容——从而拓展图书馆的服务范围。当然,要想充分利用这些资源,你必须学会​​如何使用图书馆。

Even with the in­ter­net, there is no sub­sti­tute for the lib­rary. You can use the lib­rary not just to find sources on a topic but to ex­plore and re­fine top­ics and re­search ques­tions you might want to pur­sue. Whether you visit in per­son, which we highly re­com­mend, or vir­tu­ally, the lib­rary is an in­dis­pens­able tool for re­search. Given the volume of in­form­a­tion now avail­able on­line, you might think lib­rar­ies are no longer ne­ces­sary ex­cept, per­haps, for highly spe­cial­ized re­search. How­ever, the op­pos­ite is true. With so much in­form­a­tion at our fin­ger­tips, lib­rar­ies are more es­sen­tial than ever in do­ing re­search. Lib­rar­ies not only let us ac­cess in­form­a­tion but also en­sure that our sources are re­li­able. Even if your pub­lic or aca­demic lib­rary is com­par­at­ively small, it serves as a portal to a much broader range of re­sources—re­search guides, ref­er­ence works, and on­line data­bases and con­tent—that ex­tends the lib­rary’s reach. Of course, to be­ne­fit from these re­sources, you must learn to nav­ig­ate the lib­rary.

3.2.1  规划您的图书馆检索

3.2.1  Plan­ning Your Lib­rary Search

在使用资料来源之前,您必须先找到并评估它们。一些最终会成为资料来源的材料可能就存放在您的图书馆里;而另一些则可能在其他地方,例如网上或其他场所。在其他图书馆。因此,要想充分利用图书馆提供的资源,您必须提前规划好检索路线。幸运的是,这正是图书馆及其图书管理员最能发挥作用的地方。

Be­fore you can use sources, you must first find and eval­u­ate them. Some ma­ter­i­als that will even­tu­ally serve as sources will be phys­ic­ally loc­ated in your lib­rary; oth­ers are likely else­where, whether on­line or at an­other lib­rary. To take ad­vant­age of what lib­rar­ies have to of­fer, then, you must plan your search. For­tu­nately, this is where lib­rar­ies—and lib­rar­i­ans—are most use­ful.

一开始,如何着手查找资料可能会让人不知所措。有了研究主题或问题后,人们很容易直接在图书馆的搜索引擎中输入几个关键词,看看能搜到什么结果。我们也会这样做,但我们也知道,图书馆提供了更系统、更高效的方法来发现有用且可靠的资源。

Know­ing where to be­gin a search can be over­whelm­ing at first. With a topic or a re­search ques­tion in hand, it is tempt­ing simply to enter a few terms in your lib­rary’s search en­gine and see what comes up. We do this too, but we also know that the lib­rary of­fers more sys­tem­atic and pro­duct­ive meth­ods for dis­cov­er­ing use­ful and cred­ible sources.


咨询图书馆员。或许我们能提供的最佳建议就是依靠图书馆员的研究专长。无论是普通参考咨询馆员,还是(在规模较大的图书馆中)学科专家,都能帮助您优化检索参数,并指导您找到针对特定研究问题的合适工具。他们可以帮助您使用馆藏目录查找本馆或其他图书馆的馆藏资料(以及可通过馆际互借获取的资料)。这些图书馆员通常还会编写研究指南,列出特定领域的参考书目和在线数据库。

Ask a Lib­rar­ian. Per­haps the best ad­vice we can of­fer is to rely on the re­search ex­pert­ise of lib­rar­i­ans. Both gen­eral ref­er­ence lib­rar­i­ans and (in lar­ger lib­rar­ies) sub­ject-area spe­cial­ists can help you re­fine your search para­met­ers and dir­ect you to the right tools for your spe­cific re­search ques­tion. They can help you use the cata­log to loc­ate ma­ter­i­als held by your lib­rary or by other lib­rar­ies (and ob­tain­able through in­ter­lib­rary loan). These same lib­rar­i­ans typ­ic­ally design re­search guides that identify ref­er­ence works and on­line data­bases for spe­cific fields.

别害羞。图书馆员乐于帮助各个层次、各个阶段的研究人员。他们可以帮助您明确研究问题、制定检索词,并整理检索结果,确保您没有遗漏任何有价值的信息。唯一令人尴尬的问题是您应该问却没问的问题。当然,提前做好准备对繁忙的图书馆员来说是有益的。如果您已经准备好一个完善的研究问题,图书馆员就能更好地为您提供建议。您可以参考第一章中的三步评估标准来描述您的项目:

And don’t be shy. Lib­rar­i­ans love to as­sist re­search­ers of all levels and at all stages of the re­search pro­cess. They can help you for­mu­late your re­search ques­tion, de­velop search terms, and in­vent­ory your res­ults to en­sure you haven’t over­looked some­thing of value. The only em­bar­rass­ing ques­tion is the one you failed to ask but should have. Of course, it pays to meet busy lib­rar­i­ans halfway by pre­par­ing in ad­vance. If you have a well-de­veloped re­search ques­tion ready to share, your lib­rar­ian will be able to give you bet­ter ad­vice. You might de­scribe your pro­ject us­ing the three-step rub­ric from chapter 1:

  1. 1. 我正在研究20世纪80年代的教育政策。
    1. 2. 了解中西部地区的学校董事会如何处理种族融合问题
      1. 3. 因为我想了解种族关系中的地区差异。
  2. 1. I am work­ing on edu­ca­tional policy in the 1980s
    1. 2. to find out how school boards in the Mid­w­est dealt with de­seg­reg­a­tion
      1. 3. be­cause I want to un­der­stand re­gional dif­fer­ences in race re­la­tions.

查阅参考资料。如果您对某个主题已经非常了解,您可能也知道如何找到相关资料。但如果您对这个主题还不熟悉,那就需要参考其他资料了。对于某个主题,切勿急于直接查阅你认为相关的原始资料或二手资料。这种方法既不可靠又难以预测,而且可能也节省不了你的时间。更有效的策略是让参考书引导你的检索工作。由专家编纂的综合性参考书,例如《不列颠百科全书》,以及更专业的参考书,例如《哲学百科全书》 ,都能为你提供大致的概览,让你更容易理解你的资料在整体框架中的位置。此外,参考书通常包含引文或书目,这些引文或书目可以引导你找到那些你可能忽略的资料。

Con­sult Ref­er­ence Works. If you already know a lot about your topic, you prob­ably also know how to find sources on it. But if you are new to a topic, res­ist the tempta­tion to go straight to primary or sec­ond­ary sources that strike you as rel­ev­ant. This ap­proach is un­re­li­able and un­pre­dict­able and prob­ably won’t save you any time. A more suc­cess­ful strategy is to al­low ref­er­ence works to shape your search ef­forts. Com­piled by ex­perts, both gen­eral ref­er­ence works such as the En­cyc­lo­pae­dia Brit­an­nica and more spe­cial­ized works such as the En­cyc­lo­pe­dia of Philo­sophy will give you the lay of the land, so that later it will be easier to see how your sources fit within the big­ger pic­ture. In ad­di­tion, ref­er­ence works of­ten in­clude cita­tions or bib­li­o­graph­ies that can lead you to sources you might oth­er­wise over­look.

在研究初期,书目资料尤为重要,其中许多都提供了关于某一主题的重要文章或书籍的摘要。寻找带有注释的书目或年度文献综述,这些资料通常会总结近期出版的书籍或文章,因为它们往往能为你的研究提供有价值的线索。

Es­pe­cially valu­able at early stages of re­search are bib­li­o­graphic works, many of which provide ab­stracts sum­mar­iz­ing sig­ni­fic­ant art­icles or books on a topic. Look for an­not­ated bib­li­o­graph­ies or an­nual lit­er­at­ure re­views that sum up re­cent books or art­icles be­cause these of­ten of­fer prom­ising leads for your re­search.


探索在线数据库。图书馆与公共互联网的区别在于其订阅的索引和数据库。除了书籍之外,这些数据库可以说是图书馆最宝贵的资产,因为它们使研究人员能够获取原本无法获得的资料。每家图书馆的订阅内容都不尽相同,大型研究型图书馆通常提供最全面的专业索引和数据库访问权限。然而,所有学术图书馆和许多公共图书馆都提供一套强大的在线工具,极大地扩展了其馆藏。在研究中,您肯定会需要利用这些通用和专业资源。至少要熟悉您所在图书馆订阅的主要数据库,例如 JSTOR、Academic Search Premier、MLA International Bibliography 或 PubMed。许多学术数据库提供摘要或引导您找到包含摘要的文章。查看这些摘要可以帮助您判断文章本身是否值得阅读。一些数据库还允许您访问全文文章甚至书籍。但请注意:如果您的图书馆没有订阅数据库中收录的特定期刊,您可能需要付费才能访问全文。在此之前,请务必先咨询图书馆员,了解其他访问方式。

Ex­plore On­line Data­bases. What sets lib­rar­ies apart from the pub­licly avail­able in­ter­net are their sub­scrip­tions to in­dexes and data­bases. After books, these are ar­gu­ably a lib­rary’s most valu­able as­sets, since they give re­search­ers ac­cess to ma­ter­i­als they could not ob­tain oth­er­wise. Each lib­rary’s sub­scrip­tions will dif­fer, with ma­jor re­search lib­rar­ies of­fer­ing the most com­pre­hens­ive ac­cess to spe­cial­ized in­dexes and data­bases. How­ever, every aca­demic lib­rary and many pub­lic lib­rar­ies of­fer a power­ful set of on­line tools that greatly ex­tend their ac­tual col­lec­tions. You will cer­tainly want to make use of these gen­eral and spe­cial­ized re­sources in your re­search. At least be­come fa­mil­iar with the ma­jor data­bases to which your lib­rary sub­scribes, such as JSTOR, Aca­demic Search Premier, MLA In­ter­na­tional Bib­li­o­graphy, or PubMed. Many aca­demic data­bases either provide ab­stracts or dir­ect you to art­icles that in­clude ab­stracts. Look­ing at these can help you de­cide if an art­icle it­self is worth read­ing. Some data­bases al­low you to ac­cess full-text art­icles and even books. But be aware: if your lib­rary does not sub­scribe to a par­tic­u­lar journal in­cluded in a data­base, you might be asked to pay a fee to ac­cess a full-text art­icle. Be­fore do­ing so, al­ways speak with a lib­rar­ian about other means of ac­cess.

3.2.2  寻找具体资源

3.2.2  Find­ing Spe­cific Sources

在考虑了检索策略和资源之后,您现在可以开始在图书馆内外寻找特定的资源。当然,这个过程并非完全线性。一个资源可能会引导您找到其他资源,并让您重新访问之前浏览过的目录和数据库,只不过这次需要使用新的检索词。新手研究人员往往过于依赖少数几个检索词,或者使用过于宽泛(或过于狭窄)而无法找到相关资源的检索词。成功的研究人员深知必须灵活变通:检索通常需要反复尝试,才能找到能够检索到最相关资源的检索词。

Hav­ing con­sidered your search strategies and re­sources, you are now in a po­s­i­tion to look for spe­cific sources in and bey­ond the lib­rary. Of course, this pro­cess is not strictly lin­ear. A single source can lead to oth­ers and re­turn you to cata­logs and data­bases you have already vis­ited, only this time with new search terms. Novice re­search­ers of­ten rely too heav­ily on only a few terms or on terms that prove to be too broad (or nar­row) to call up rel­ev­ant sources. Suc­cess­ful re­search­ers know they have to be flex­ible: searches typ­ic­ally in­volve trial and er­ror to dis­cover those terms that will yield the most rel­ev­ant sources.


检索图书馆目录。在研究过程中,您可能需要以两种互补的方式使用图书馆目录:关键词检索和浏览。当您查阅了一些资料,确定了与您的研究主题相关的关键词列表后,就可以使用这些关键词在目录中进行检索了。在大多数图书馆,您必须选择要用于检索的类别(书籍、文章、期刊等)。

Search Your Lib­rary Cata­log. In your re­search, you will prob­ably need to use your lib­rary’s cata­log in two com­ple­ment­ary ways: keyword search­ing and brows­ing. When you have ex­amined some sources to identify a list of keywords as­so­ci­ated with your topic, you are ready to use these terms to search the cata­log. In most lib­rar­ies, you must choose the cat­egory (books, art­icles, journ­als, etc.) you wish to use for your search.

如果您的资料来源包括书籍,您可以使用美国国会图书馆主题词表(可在书籍扉页背面或在线目录的“详情”页面找到)来查找相关资料。本书扉页背面列出了以下术语:

If your sources in­clude books, you can use Lib­rary of Con­gress sub­ject head­ings, found either on the back of a book’s title page or on its “de­tails” page in the on­line cata­log, to search for re­lated ma­ter­i­als. On the back of this book’s title page are the terms

研究方法论 | 技术写作

Re­search—Meth­od­o­logy. | Tech­nical writ­ing.

如果您在网上目录中搜索这些关键词,就能找到其他相关主题的书籍。一本书可能同时被归入多个主题类别。在这种情况下,不妨也快速浏览一下这些类别下的书名。您或许能找到一些原本会错过的有用资源。您还可以浏览目录,查找索书号相似的书籍。一旦找到一本看似符合您需求的书籍,就利用它的索书号查找与其放在同一书架上的其他书籍。在您要查找的书籍的目录条目中,找到“浏览”链接。虽然这个列表不如关键词列表那样精准,但其中可能包含一些意想不到的宝藏。所以,不要局限于与目标最接近的书籍,花些时间广泛浏览吧。

If you search an on­line cata­log for those terms, you will find other books on those sub­jects. A book may be cross-lis­ted un­der mul­tiple sub­ject head­ings. In that case, take a quick look at the titles lis­ted un­der those head­ings as well. You may find use­ful sources you would have missed oth­er­wise. You can also browse the cata­log for books with sim­ilar call num­bers. Once you identify a book that seems on tar­get, use its call num­ber to find oth­ers shelved along with it. Look for the browse link in your book’s cata­log entry. This list will be less fo­cused than a keyword list, but it may con­tain un­ex­pec­ted gems. So don’t re­strict your­self to books nearest your tar­get. In­vest the time to browse widely.

任何在线搜索的问题在于,它可能会返回数量庞大的结果。芝加哥大学图书馆有关于拿破仑的书籍成百上千,书名中包含“环境”一词的书籍更是数不胜数。如果搜索结果过多,请缩小范围。如今的在线目录提供了多种搜索限制方式:出版日期、语言、主题、资源类型(书籍、文章、数据库等),以及其他一些限制条件(具体取决于目录)。如果您不确定如何缩小搜索范围,可以先从出版日期入手。将范围限定为过去十五年内出版的文献;如果结果仍然过多,则进一步缩小至过去十年。

The prob­lem with any on­line search is that it may pro­duce an over­whelm­ing num­ber of titles. The Uni­ver­sity of Chicago lib­rary has hun­dreds of books on Na­po­leon and thou­sands with the word en­vir­on­ment in their titles. If your search turns up too many sources, nar­row it down. Today’s on­line cata­logs let you limit searches in many ways: by date of pub­lic­a­tion, lan­guage, sub­ject, re­source type (books, art­icles, data­bases, etc.), and pos­sibly oth­ers de­pend­ing on the cata­log. If you can’t de­cide how to nar­row your search, start with the date of pub­lic­a­tion. Re­strict it to those sources pub­lished in the last fif­teen years; if that still turns up too many, cut to the last ten years.

在查阅了美国国会图书馆或大型大学图书馆的馆藏目录后,您可能会发现您所在的图书馆只收藏了您找到的资料的一小部分。不过,您的图书馆很可能可以通过馆际互借等服务帮您借到所需的资料。如果图书馆无法帮您找到所需的资料,或者无法及时送达,那么您可以考虑购买。

After you search the Lib­rary of Con­gress or a large uni­ver­sity cata­log, you may dis­cover that your lib­rary holds only a frac­tion of what you found. But your lib­rary can likely help you bor­row what you need through a ser­vice such as in­ter­lib­rary loan. If your lib­rary can­not get you some­thing, or can­not get it to you in time for it to be use­ful, then you might con­sider buy­ing it.

另一方面,如果你一无所获,可能是你的选题过于狭窄或过于另类,难以快速取得成果。但你也可能触及了一个重要的问题,而这个问题此前无人思考过,至少很久以来如此。例如,“友谊”曾是哲学家们关注的重要议题,但后来却长期被主流百科全书所忽略。然而,近年来,它又重新成为严肃的研究课题。你或许只有通过自己的深入思考,才能在一个被忽视的课题上有所建树。从长远来看,这项研究或许能让你名声大噪,但它可能并不适用于几周后就要交的论文。

On the other hand, if you find noth­ing, your topic may be too nar­row or too far off the beaten track to yield quick res­ults. But you could also be on to an im­port­ant ques­tion that nobody else has thought about, at least not for a while. For ex­ample, “friend­ship” was once an im­port­ant topic for philo­soph­ers, but it was then long ig­nored by ma­jor en­cyc­lo­pe­dias. Re­cently, though, it has ree­m­erged as a topic of ser­i­ous re­search. Chances are you’ll make some­thing of a neg­lected topic only through your own hard think­ing. In the long run, that re­search might make you fam­ous, but it prob­ably won’t work for a pa­per due in a few weeks.


浏览书库。在线查找资料比步行查找要快得多,但如果你从未去过图书馆的书库(假设你被允许进入),你可能会错过一些只有在那里才能找到的关键资料。更重要的是,你会错过偶然发现的乐趣——那种只有当某个书名恰巧吸引你的目光时,才会遇到的宝贵资料。(我们都曾以这种方式发现过重要的资料。)

Browse the Stacks. Do­ing re­search on­line is faster than on foot, but if you never go into the stacks of your lib­rary (as­sum­ing you are al­lowed to), you may miss cru­cial sources that you will find only there. More im­port­ant, you’ll miss the be­ne­fits of serendip­ity—a chance en­counter with a valu­able source that oc­curs only when a title hap­pens to catch your eye. (All of us have found im­port­ant sources in this way.)

如果能进入书库,找到摆放你研究主题书籍的书架,然后浏览该书架上的书名,再浏览上方、下方和两侧的书架,尤其要注意大学出版社出版的新装本。然后转身快速浏览身后的书名;你永远不知道会有什么发现。在审阅一本有潜力的学术著作时,快速浏览书架上的书名。首先浏览其目录和与你的问题相关的关键词索引。然后快速浏览其参考文献,寻找其他相关的书籍。手捧一本书比在线查找要快得多。(有关系统性略读的更多信息,请参见3.4 。)

If you can get into the stacks, find the shelf with books on your topic, then scan the titles on that shelf, then on the ones above, be­low, and on either side, es­pe­cially for books with new bind­ings pub­lished by uni­ver­sity presses. Then turn around and skim titles be­hind you; you never know. When ex­amin­ing a prom­ising schol­arly book, skim its table of con­tents and in­dex for keywords re­lated to your ques­tion. Then skim its bib­li­o­graphy for other titles that look rel­ev­ant. You can do all that faster with a book in your hand than you can on­line. (See 3.4 for more on sys­tem­atic skim­ming.)

你可以在网上查看大多数期刊的目录,但浏览书架上的期刊可能更有效率。一旦你在网上或参考文献中发现了一些有潜力的期刊,就去书架上找到它们。快速浏览一下近十年的合订本(大多数合订本前面都有年度目录)。然后快速查看一下附近书架上的期刊。你会惊讶地发现,很多相关的文章你在网上很容易错过。

You can check tables of con­tents for most journ­als on­line, but brows­ing among shelved journ­als can be more pro­duct­ive. Once you identify prom­ising journ­als on­line or in bib­li­o­graph­ies, find them on the shelf. Skim the bound volumes for the last ten years (most have an an­nual table of con­tents in front). Then take a quick look at journ­als shelved nearby. You will be sur­prised how of­ten you find a rel­ev­ant art­icle that you would have missed on­line.

如果您无法亲自到馆浏览书架,或许可以尝试在线浏览。虽然在线浏览无法完全替代手捧书页翻阅或在书架上滑动手指寻找书籍的体验,但它仍然能让您感受到一些亲身浏览的惊喜。事实上,您应该同时使用这两种方式进行浏览,因为像在线期刊和电子书这样的电子资源只能在图书馆的在线目录中找到。大多数图书馆目录都允许您按索书号顺序浏览馆藏。如果您不知道如何查找,请咨询图书馆员。

If you can’t browse your stacks in per­son, you might be able to browse them vir­tu­ally. While vir­tual brows­ing is no sub­sti­tute for hold­ing a book in your hands and flip­ping through its pages, or for run­ning your fin­ger along a shelf to see what you find, it still al­lows you to ex­per­i­ence some of the serendip­ity of in-per­son brows­ing. In fact, you should al­ways browse them both ways be­cause you can only find elec­tronic sources like on­line journ­als and ebooks in your lib­rary’s on­line cata­log. Most lib­rary cata­logs al­low you to scroll through their hold­ings se­quen­tially by call num­ber. If you don’t know how to search that way, ask a lib­rar­ian.


沿着文献路径进行检索。大多数资源都会提供文献检索的起点。当你找到看似有用的学术资源时,浏览其参考文献或引用作品列表,寻找其他有价值的资源。如果该资源是书籍,请查看其索引。一般来说,图表的论述越详尽,该图表就越重要。期刊文章通常以对先前研究的回顾开头,并列出所有引用的文献。通过沿着这条文献路径,你可以避开最棘手的研究领域,因为一个资源总是会引出其他资源,而其他资源又会引出更多资源,如此循环往复……但请记住,沿着文献路径进行检索是一种回顾性的工作——它会将你引向其他研究者在写作时认为重要的资源,而这些资源在今天可能仍然重要,也可能不再重要。此外,它还可能延续一种特定的偏见,即过去被引用的资源会被继续引用,而其他观点则被排除在外。

Fol­low Bib­li­o­graphic Trails. Most sources will give you trail­heads for bib­li­o­graphic searches. When you find a schol­arly source that seems use­ful, skim its bib­li­o­graphy or works cited for other prom­ising sources. If that source is a book, check its in­dex. Gen­er­ally, the more ex­tens­ive a fig­ure’s treat­ment, the more im­port­ant that fig­ure is. Journal art­icles usu­ally be­gin with a re­view of pre­vi­ous re­search, all cited. By fol­low­ing this bib­li­o­graphic trail, you can nav­ig­ate the most dif­fi­cult re­search ter­rit­ory be­cause one source al­ways leads to oth­ers, which lead to oth­ers, which lead to . . . But re­mem­ber that fol­low­ing bib­li­o­graphic trails is a ret­ro­spect­ive ex­er­cise—it will lead you to sources other re­search­ers thought were im­port­ant when they were writ­ing, and those sources may or may not be as im­port­ant today. It can also per­petu­ate a par­tic­u­lar kind of bias, in which sources cited in the past con­tinue to be cited, to the ex­clu­sion of other voices.


使用引文索引。许多在线目录和数据库允许您查找引用已知文献的其他来源。这种称为引文索引的技术,就像沿着书目路径向前追溯,而不是向后追溯。您无需查找某个文献引用的其他来源(反向引用 ,而是查找引用该文献的其他来源(正向引用) 。过去,研究人员需要查阅纸质引文索引才能进行此类研究,这可能需要数小时甚至数天的时间。但如今的在线目录和数据库使之变得轻松便捷。一般来说,某个文献被引用的次数越多,其声誉和影响力就越大。但需要注意的是:有时,某些文献被频繁引用是因为它们质量很差,或者因为它们代表了曾经流行但已被证伪的观点。

Use Cita­tion In­dex­ing. Many on­line cata­logs and data­bases let you look up other sources that cite one that you already know. This tech­nique, called cita­tion in­dex­ing, is like fol­low­ing a bib­li­o­graphic trail, but for­ward rather than back­ward. In­stead of search­ing for sources that a given source cites, back­ward cita­tion, you can search for sources that cite a given source, or for­ward cita­tion. To do this kind of re­search, re­search­ers used to have to con­sult prin­ted cita­tion in­dexes, a pro­cess that could take hours or even days. But today’s on­line cata­logs and data­bases make it easy. Gen­er­ally, the more a given source is cited, the greater its repu­ta­tion and im­pact. Again, be care­ful: oc­ca­sion­ally, sources are cited fre­quently be­cause they are so bad or be­cause they rep­res­ent ideas that once were prom­in­ent but have been de­bunked.

因此,衡量一个信息来源的可信度,既要看它引用的信息来源,也要看引用它的信息来源。通过追踪文献脉络并结合使用引文索引,您可以构建一个丰富的信息来源网络,为您的研究提供支持。

A source’s cred­ib­il­ity can thus be gauged both by the sources it cites and by the sources that cite it. By fol­low­ing bib­li­o­graphic trails and us­ing cita­tion in­dex­ing in tan­dem, you can build up a rich net­work of sources to sup­port your own re­search.

3.3  在线查找资源

3.3  Loc­at­ing Sources On­line

你已经知道如何搜索公开的互联网资源:在浏览器的搜索栏中输入几个关键词,屏幕上就会出现一页页的链接——这些链接以URL(统一资源定位符)的形式呈现。你日常搜索的经验可能会让你认为互联网全面可靠。但这其实是个误区。再次提醒,图书馆的馆藏目录和数据库可以让你获取大量无法通过谷歌(甚至谷歌学术)找到的信息。

You already know how to search the pub­licly avail­able in­ter­net: type a few words into the search bar of your browser and pages of links—de­livered as URLs, or uni­form re­source loc­at­ors—ap­pear on your screen. Your prac­tical ex­per­i­ence with such every­day re­search might lead you to re­gard the in­ter­net as com­pre­hens­ive and re­li­able. But that would be a mis­take. Again, re­mem­ber that your lib­rary’s cata­logs and data­bases will al­low you to ac­cess a great deal of in­form­a­tion that you can­not get through Google (or even Google Scholar).

使用互联网进行研究时,务必保持一定的怀疑态度:我们通过谷歌、其他搜索引擎或人工智能找到的大部分信息是可靠的,但并非所有信息都如此。与图书馆的目录和数据库不同,互联网基本上缺乏监管。没有人能够保证无数网站上发布和发送的资料和内容的真实性。最后,请记住,提供免费搜索引擎的公司通过收集您的在线行为数据和销售广告来盈利,而且网站管理员经常会修改网站以提高其在搜索结果中的排名。这些做法未必总是可靠的。虽然这种行为很卑鄙,但你应该记住,搜索引擎公司和网站本身对你在网上访问的内容和浏览的网站很感兴趣。

When us­ing the in­ter­net for re­search, main­tain a healthy skep­ti­cism: much of what we find through Google, other search en­gines, or gen­er­at­ive AI is re­li­able, but not everything is. In con­trast to your lib­rary’s cata­logs and data­bases, the in­ter­net is es­sen­tially un­mon­itored. There is no one to vouch for the cred­ib­il­ity of ma­ter­i­als and con­tent pos­ted to, and sent from, count­less web­sites. And fi­nally, keep in mind that com­pan­ies of­fer­ing free search en­gines make their money by ac­quir­ing data about you through your on­line be­ha­vior and by selling ad­vert­ising, and that web­mas­ters routinely modify their sites to make them ap­pear higher in search res­ults. These prac­tices are not ne­ces­sar­ily ne­far­i­ous, but you should re­mem­ber that search en­gine com­pan­ies and web­sites them­selves have an in­terest in where you go and what you see on­line.

但是,只要牢记这些局限性,互联网仍然可以成为您研究计划中不可或缺的一部分。以下是我们自身研究中使用互联网的一些方式:

But if you keep these lim­it­a­tions in mind, us­ing the in­ter­net can be a valu­able com­pon­ent of your re­search plan. Here are some ways in which we use the in­ter­net in our own re­search:

  • ▪ 为了更好地理解一个新主题——将我们在这个阶段所学到的一切都视为暂时的。
  • ▪  To get our bear­ings with re­spect to a new topic—re­gard­ing everything we learn at this stage as pro­vi­sional.
  • ▪ 探索可用于更系统搜索的潜在关键词。
  • ▪  To ex­plore po­ten­tial keywords to use in a more sys­tem­atic search.
  • ▪ 提醒自己注意日期或事实——再次提醒自己要对照更可靠的来源进行核实。
  • ▪  To re­mind ourselves of dates or facts—again re­mem­ber­ing to check these against more re­li­able sources.
  • ▪ 要查找我们可能希望联系的资料作者:许多学者和研究人员的简介可以在大学网站上找到。
  • ▪  To loc­ate the au­thors of sources whom we might wish to con­tact: pro­files of many schol­ars and re­search­ers are avail­able on col­lege and uni­ver­sity web­sites.
  • ▪ 通过 Google Scholar 快速搜索专业数据库,大致了解我们可能会找到什么。
  • ▪  To get a “ball­park” sense of what we are likely to find through a search of spe­cial­ized data­bases by a quick search us­ing Google Scholar.

公开的通用三级资源,例如维基百科,以及一些专业资源,例如哲学领域的互联网哲学百科全书(IEP)、社会学领域的Sociosite网站和维多利亚时代研究领域的维多利亚时代网站(Victorian Web),通常都相当可靠。但你仍然应该对它们持怀疑态度。一般来说,不要将网络文章(学术期刊文章除外)视为二级资源,因为它们的可靠性取决于学术出版体系固有的审核机制,尤其是同行评审。不过,你可以自由地将互联网用作一级资源。例如,如果你研究肥皂剧剧情如何回应粉丝的反应,粉丝博客就是很好的一级资源。(我们将在下一节讨论如何评估资源。)

Pub­licly avail­able gen­eral ter­tiary sources such as Wiki­pe­dia and spe­cial­ized ones such as the In­ter­net En­cyc­lo­pe­dia of Philo­sophy for philo­sophy, So­ci­os­ite for so­ci­ology, and the Vic­torian Web for Vic­torian stud­ies are of­ten quite re­li­able. But you should still view them skep­tic­ally. In gen­eral, don’t treat on­line art­icles (aside from those in schol­arly journ­als) as sec­ond­ary sources, as these de­pend for their cred­ib­il­ity on the checks in­her­ent in the aca­demic pub­lish­ing sys­tem, es­pe­cially that of peer re­view. You can, how­ever, use the in­ter­net freely as a primary source. For ex­ample, if you study how soap op­era story lines re­spond to their fans’ re­ac­tions, fan blogs would be fine primary sources. (We dis­cuss eval­u­at­ing sources in the next sec­tion.)


尊重作者权利。古腾堡计划和谷歌图书等网站可以提供可靠的、已过版权保护期的旧文本的在线版本。但是,发布较新的文本(在美国,指过去95年内出版的文本)可能侵犯作者的版权。您应该避免依赖未经授权的副本——而不是不仅因为这些复制品是非法的,还因为它们经常被错误地复制。

Re­spect­ing Au­thors’ Rights. Sites such as Pro­ject Guten­berg and Google Books can provide re­li­able on­line cop­ies of older texts no longer in copy­right. But post­ings of more re­cent texts (in the United States, those pub­lished within the past ninety-five years) may vi­ol­ate the au­thor’s copy­right. You should avoid re­ly­ing on un­au­thor­ized cop­ies—not only be­cause those cop­ies are il­legal but also be­cause they are of­ten in­ac­cur­ately re­pro­duced.

3.4  评估信息来源的相关性和可靠性

3.4  Eval­u­at­ing Sources for Rel­ev­ance and Re­li­ab­il­ity

当你开始寻找资料时,你可能会发现资料多到用不完,因此必须迅速评估它们的实用性。为此,可以使用两个标准:相关性和可靠性。

When you start look­ing for sources, you will prob­ably find more than you can use, so you must quickly eval­u­ate their use­ful­ness. To do so, use two cri­teria: rel­ev­ance and re­li­ab­il­ity.

3.4.1  评估信息来源的相关性

3.4.1  Eval­u­at­ing Sources for Rel­ev­ance

如果你的资料​​来源是纸质书或电子书,请这样做:

If your source is a book or an ebook, do this:

  • ▪ 先浏览索引,找出关键词,然后浏览包含这些关键词的页面。如果来源是电子书,则可以搜索全文以查找关键词。
  • ▪  Skim its in­dex for your keywords, then skim the pages on which those words oc­cur. If the source is an ebook, you can search the whole text for your keywords.
  • ▪ 浏览章节中大量使用关键词的第一段和最后一段。
  • ▪  Skim the first and last para­graphs in chapters that use a lot of your keywords.
  • ▪ 略读序言、引言、概要章节等。
  • ▪  Skim pro­logues, in­tro­duc­tions, sum­mary chapters, and so on.
  • ▪ 略读最后一章,特别是开头和结尾两三页。
  • ▪  Skim the last chapter, es­pe­cially the first and last two or three pages.
  • ▪ 如果来源是文章集,请浏览编辑的导言。
  • ▪  If the source is a col­lec­tion of art­icles, skim the ed­itor’s in­tro­duc­tion.
  • ▪ 查看参考书目,寻找与您的主题相关的书籍。
  • ▪  Check the bib­li­o­graphy for titles rel­ev­ant to your topic.

如果你的信息来源是网络或纸质期刊文章,请这样做:

If your source is an on­line or print journal art­icle, do this:

  • ▪ 阅读摘要(如果有的话)。
  • ▪  Read the ab­stract, if it has one.
  • ▪ 如果文章在网上,请在文本中搜索关键词。
  • ▪  If the art­icle is on­line, search the text for your keywords.
  • ▪ 略读引言和结论,或者如果它们没有用标题标记,则略读前六七段和后四五段。
  • ▪  Skim the in­tro­duc­tion and con­clu­sion, or if they are not marked off by head­ings, skim the first six or seven para­graphs and the last four or five.
  • ▪ 浏览章节标题,并阅读各章节的第一段和最后一段。
  • ▪  Skim for sec­tion head­ings, and read the first and last para­graphs of those sec­tions.
  • ▪ 查看参考书目,寻找与您的主题相关的书籍。
  • ▪  Check the bib­li­o­graphy for titles rel­ev­ant to your topic.

如果你的信息来源是其他类型的网络资料,请这样做:

If your source is an­other type of on­line ma­ter­ial, do this:

  • ▪ 如果它看起来像一篇印刷文章,请按照期刊文章的步骤进行操作,并搜索您的关键词。
  • ▪  If it looks like a prin­ted art­icle, fol­low the steps for a journal art­icle, and also search for your keywords.
  • ▪ 略读标有“引言”、“概述”、“摘要”或“诸如此类。如果没有,请查找名为“关于本站”或类似标题的链接。
  • ▪  Skim sec­tions labeled “in­tro­duc­tion,” “over­view,” “sum­mary,” or the like. If there are none, look for a link labeled “About the Site” or some­thing sim­ilar.
  • ▪ 如果网站有标有“网站地图”或“索引”的链接,请检查其中是否包含您的关键词,并浏览引用的页面。
  • ▪  If the site has a link labeled “Site Map” or “In­dex,” check it for your keywords and skim the ref­er­enced pages.
  • ▪ 如果网站有“搜索”功能,请输入关键词。
  • ▪  If the site has a “search” re­source, type in your keywords.

这种快速阅读方式可以指导你自己的写作和修改。如果你没有合理组织文章结构,让读者能够快速浏览并了解你的论点概要,那么你的文章就存在问题,我们将在第10章和第11章讨论这个问题。

This kind of speedy read­ing can guide your own writ­ing and re­vi­sion. If you do not struc­ture your pa­per so your read­ers can skim it quickly and see the out­lines of your ar­gu­ment, your pa­per has a prob­lem, an is­sue we dis­cuss in chapters 10 and 11.

3.4.2  评估信息源的可靠性

3.4.2  Eval­u­at­ing Sources for Re­li­ab­il­ity

你需要培养对信息来源可靠性的判断力。这需要经验和实践的积累,也需要对信息来源的准确性和背后的动机保持一定的怀疑态度。通常来说,依赖那些致力于支持权威研究的机构是比较稳妥的,例如大学、大学出版社、学术期刊以及一些独立的科研基金会。但这些机构本身在信息传播方面也存在局限性:它们可能会排除与既有观点相悖的新想法,或者排除那些来自拥有不同见解、背景和经验的人的观点。因此,你也必须运用自己的判断力,而且你随时可以与老师、导师或图书馆员讨论你对特定信息来源的疑虑。

You need to de­velop a feel for the re­li­ab­il­ity of your sources. This is some­thing that comes with ex­per­i­ence and prac­tice and from cul­tiv­at­ing a cer­tain de­gree of skep­ti­cism about the ac­cur­acy of and mo­tiv­a­tions be­hind the claims sources make. It’s usu­ally safe to rely on the in­sti­tu­tions that ex­ist to sup­port au­then­tic re­search, such as uni­ver­sit­ies, uni­ver­sity presses, aca­demic journ­als, and some in­de­pend­ent re­search found­a­tions. But those in­sti­tu­tions them­selves can also be lim­ited in what they al­low into the con­ver­sa­tion: they may per­haps ex­clude new ideas that con­flict with more es­tab­lished ones or that come from people with di­verse in­sights, back­grounds, and ex­per­i­ences. So you must also ex­er­cise your own judg­ment, and you can al­ways dis­cuss your con­cerns about spe­cific sources with a teacher, mentor, or lib­rar­ian.

以下是一些可靠性的标志:

Here are some signs of re­li­ab­il­ity:

  1. 1.该信息来源是否由信誉良好的出版社以纸质或在线形式出版?大多数大学出版社及其出版的书籍和期刊都比较可靠,尤其是当您熟悉该大学的名称时。一些商业出版社(与大学无关)在某些领域也值得信赖,例如诺顿出版社在文学领域、爱思唯尔出版社在科学领域以及韦斯特出版社在法律领域。对于商业出版的书籍,尤其是那些做出耸人听闻的论断的自出版书籍,尤其是在涉及争议性问题时,要保持怀疑态度。即使作者拥有“博士学位”,他们的学术成果也未必可信(这关乎信誉;参见5.6)。尤其要对某些机构保持警惕,例如……游说团体或行业组织,披着学术机构的外衣,但实际上并非学术机构。
  2. 1. Is the source pub­lished in print or on­line by a reput­able press? Most uni­ver­sity presses and the books and journ­als they pub­lish are re­li­able, es­pe­cially if you re­cog­nize the name of the uni­ver­sity. Some com­mer­cial presses, which are presses not as­so­ci­ated with a uni­ver­sity, are re­li­able in some fields, such as Norton in lit­er­at­ure, El­sevier in the sci­ences, or West in law. Be skep­tical of com­mer­cial and es­pe­cially self-pub­lished books that make sen­sa­tional claims, es­pe­cially about hotly con­tested is­sues. Even if au­thors have “PhD” after their names, their schol­ar­ship may still not be trust­worthy (it’s a mat­ter of ethos; see 5.6). Be es­pe­cially skep­tical of or­gan­iz­a­tions, such as lob­by­ing or trade or­gan­iz­a­tions, that ad­opt the trap­pings of aca­demic in­sti­tu­tions but are not.
  3. 2.该书或文章是否经过同行评审?大多数信誉良好的出版社和期刊在出版前都会请专家对书籍或文章的内容准确性和可靠性进行评审;这被称为同行评审。大学出版社出版的论文集通常(但不总是)经过同行评审;有时仅由指定的编辑进行评审。很少有商业出版社或杂志采用同行评审。如果某出版物未经同行评审,则需谨慎。
  4. 2. Was the book or art­icle peer-re­viewed? Most reput­able presses and journ­als ask ex­perts to re­view a book or art­icle for ac­cur­acy and sound­ness of con­tent be­fore it is pub­lished; this is called peer re­view. Es­say col­lec­tions pub­lished by uni­ver­sity presses are of­ten but not al­ways peer-re­viewed; some­times they are re­viewed only by the named ed­itor or ed­it­ors. Few com­mer­cial presses or magazines use peer re­view. If a pub­lic­a­tion hasn’t been peer-re­viewed, be cau­tious.
  5. 3.作者是否是知名学者?如果您是该领域的新手,这个问题很难回答。大多数出版物都会列出作者的学术资质;您可以通过搜索引擎查找更多信息。大多数资深学者都值得信赖,但即使是知名学者也可能心怀私利,尤其当他们的研究获得特定利益集团的资助时。使用搜索引擎查看作者感谢了哪些人,包括资助他们研究的基金会。
  6. 3. Is the au­thor a reput­able scholar? This is hard to an­swer if you are new to a field. Most pub­lic­a­tions cite an au­thor’s aca­demic cre­den­tials; you can find more with a search en­gine. Most es­tab­lished schol­ars are re­li­able, but even reput­able schol­ars can have axes to grind, es­pe­cially if their re­search is fin­an­cially sup­por­ted by a spe­cial in­terest group. Use a search en­gine to check out who au­thors thank, in­clud­ing found­a­tions that sup­por­ted their work.
  7. 4.如果信息来源是公共网站,它是否由信誉良好的机构赞助?网站的可靠性取决于其赞助方。通常情况下,由信誉良好的机构赞助和维护的网站是值得信赖的。如果您不熟悉某个网站的赞助方,请进行搜索以了解更多信息。但请注意,有些机构会使用看似客观的名称来掩盖其党派宣传。例如,在20世纪,卷烟制造商创建了烟草研究所(Tobacco Institute),后来更名为烟草研究委员会(Council for Tobacco Research),其使命并非进行真正的烟草研究,而是反对烟草。一些由个人支持的网站是可靠的,但由于任何具备一定技能的人都可以创建网络内容,因此许多(或许是大多数)网站并不可靠。
  8. 4. If the source is a pub­lic web­site, is it sponsored by a reput­able or­gan­iz­a­tion? A web­site is only as re­li­able as its spon­sor. You can usu­ally trust one that is sponsored and main­tained by a reput­able or­gan­iz­a­tion. If you are un­fa­mil­iar with a web­site’s spon­sor, do a search to find out more about it. But be aware that some or­gan­iz­a­tions ad­opt names that seem ob­ject­ive as cover for par­tisan ad­vocacy. For ex­ample, in the twen­ti­eth cen­tury, ci­gar­ette man­u­fac­tur­ers cre­ated the To­bacco In­sti­tute, later re­named the Coun­cil for To­bacco Re­search, whose mis­sion was not to en­gage in au­then­tic re­search on to­bacco but to counter it. Some sites sup­por­ted by in­di­vidu­als are re­li­able, but since any­one with cer­tain skills can cre­ate web con­tent, many (per­haps most) are not.
  9. 5.信息来源是否最新?你必须使用最新的信息来源,但何为最新取决于具体领域。在计算机科学领域,一篇期刊文章可能几个月就过时了;在社会科学领域,十年左右就差不多是过时的期限了。人文领域的出版物保质期更长:例如,文学或艺术评论可以保持数十年的价值。一般来说,阐述了其他研究人员普遍接受的重要观点或理论的信息来源,其时效性会比其他来源更持久。回应或拓展它。假设大多数教科书都不是最新的。如果您不确定某个资料是否被认为是最新的,请参考该领域资深研究人员的做法。查看一些近期出版的书籍或文章的参考文献列表中的文章日期:一个好的经验法则是,您可以引用与列表中较早的文章一样早的文章(但为了保险起见,最好不要引用最古老的文章)。尽量找到小说、戏剧、信件等原始作品的标准版本——它通常不是最新版本。务必查阅二手或三手资料的最新版本:研究人员经常会改变他们的观点,甚至推翻他们在早期版本中提出的观点。如果某个在线资源最近没有更新,它可能已被弃用,不再可靠。
  10. 5. Is the source cur­rent? You must use up-to-date sources, but what counts as cur­rent de­pends on the field. In com­puter sci­ence, a journal art­icle can be out-of-date in months; in the so­cial sci­ences, ten years pushes the limit. Pub­lic­a­tions have a longer shelf life in the hu­man­it­ies: lit­er­ary or art cri­ti­cism, for ex­ample, can re­main rel­ev­ant for dec­ades. In gen­eral, a source that sets out a ma­jor po­s­i­tion or the­ory that other re­search­ers ac­cept will stay cur­rent longer than those that re­spond to or de­velop it. As­sume that most text­books are not cur­rent. If you are un­sure whether a source will be con­sidered cur­rent, take your lead from the prac­tice of es­tab­lished re­search­ers in the field. Look at the dates of art­icles in the works cited lists of a few re­cent books or art­icles in the field: a good rule of thumb is that you can cite works as old as the older ones in that list (but to be safe, per­haps not as old as the old­est). Try to find a stand­ard edi­tion of primary works such as nov­els, plays, let­ters, and so on—it is usu­ally not the most re­cent. Be sure that you con­sult the most re­cent edi­tion of a sec­ond­ary or ter­tiary source: re­search­ers of­ten change their views, even re­ject­ing ones they es­poused in earlier edi­tions. And if an on­line source has not been up­dated re­cently, it may have been aban­doned and may no longer be re­li­able.
  11. 6.如果来源是书籍或文章,它是否有注释和/或参考文献?如果没有,就要提高警惕,因为你无法核实来源所声称的任何内容。
  12. 6. If the source is a book or art­icle, does it have notes and/or a bib­li­o­graphy? If not, be sus­pi­cious, be­cause you have no way to fol­low up on any­thing that the source claims.
  13. 7.如果信息来源是公共网站,它是否包含书目信息?如果一个网站没有标明赞助商和维护者、文章作者以及发布或最后更新时间,你就无法判断该网站的可靠性。
  14. 7. If the source is a pub­lic web­site, does it in­clude bib­li­o­graphic data? You can­not judge the re­li­ab­il­ity of a site that does not in­dic­ate who spon­sors and main­tains it, who wrote what’s pos­ted there, and when it was pos­ted or last up­dated.
  15. 8.如果信息来源是公共网站,它是否以审慎的态度探讨主题?真正的学术研究需要愿意考虑与自身观点不同的其他观点(参见第九章)。因此,要警惕那些夸大其词、使用侮辱性语言或攻击持不同观点者的网站(以及一般的信息来源)。
  16. 8. If the source is a pub­lic web­site, does it ap­proach its topic ju­di­ciously? Au­then­tic re­search pre­sumes a will­ing­ness to con­sider ideas other than one’s own (see chapter 9). So be wary of web­sites (like sources in gen­eral) that make wild claims, use ab­us­ive lan­guage, or at­tack those who hold al­tern­at­ive views.
  17. 9.该信息来源是否展现出基本的编辑严谨性?任何信息来源都可能偶尔出现拼写错误,但如果您发现拼写、标点和语法错误明显,表明其不够严谨,则需提高警惕。这种疏忽可能也体现在内容上。例如,如果信息来源包含明显的错误事实,则应谨慎对待。
  18. 9. Does the source dis­play a ba­sic level of ed­it­or­ial care? Any source might in­clude an oc­ca­sional typo, but if you find your­self no­ti­cing er­rors of spelling, punc­tu­ation, and gram­mar that sug­gest care­less­ness, be wary. That care­less­ness might ex­tend to the con­tent as well. For ex­ample, if a source in­cludes ob­vi­ous fac­tual er­rors, dis­trust it.
  19. 10.如果资料来源是一本书,它是否得到了很好的评价?许多领域都有已发表评论的索引,可以告诉你其他人是如何评价某个资料来源的。
  20. 10. If the source is a book, has it been well re­viewed? Many fields have in­dexes to pub­lished re­views that tell you how oth­ers have eval­u­ated a source.
  21. 11.该来源是否被其他人频繁引用?你可以通过其他人引用某个来源的频率来大致估计它的影响力。引文索引使这项工作变得很容易(参见3.2.2)。如果你发现如果某个文献被反复引用,可以推断该领域的专家认为它可靠且重要。这类文献通常具有较高的“影响因子”。你应该留意这类文献,并利用它们来明确你的研究方向。但是,文献引用次数少并不意味着它不可靠。有时,专家会忽略或轻视年轻学者或来自弱势群体的学者的观点,但如果他们的研究符合本文所述的其他标准,并且与你的研究相关,那么你当然应该参考并引用他们的研究成果。
  22. 11. Has the source been fre­quently cited by oth­ers? You can roughly es­tim­ate how in­flu­en­tial a source has been by how of­ten oth­ers cite it. Cita­tion in­dex­ing makes this easy to do (see 3.2.2). If you find that a source is cited re­peatedly, you can in­fer that ex­perts in the field re­gard it as re­li­able and sig­ni­fic­ant. Such sources are said to have a high “im­pact factor.” You should keep an eye out for such sources and use them to ori­ent your­self in your field of re­search. But just be­cause a source hasn’t been cited of­ten doesn’t mean it’s un­re­li­able. Some­times ex­perts over­look or dis­count the per­spect­ives of younger schol­ars or those from mar­gin­al­ized back­grounds, but if their work meets the other cri­teria de­scribed here and it is rel­ev­ant to your re­search, you should cer­tainly con­sult and cite it your­self.

这些指标并不能保证可靠性。审稿人虽然是专家,但也是人。他们可能会误判作品,或者忽略一些在出版后才被其他人发现的缺陷。因此,不要因为某个来源是由知名研究人员撰写、由知名出版社出版就想当然地认为可以不加批判地阅读。

These in­dic­at­ors do not guar­an­tee re­li­ab­il­ity. Re­view­ers, while ex­perts, are people too. They might mis­judge a work or miss short­com­ings that oth­ers, after pub­lic­a­tion, dis­cover. So don’t as­sume that you can read un­crit­ic­ally just be­cause a source is writ­ten by a reput­able re­searcher and pub­lished by a reput­able press.

3.5  探索可预测的来源

3.5  Look­ing Bey­ond Pre­dict­able Sources

如果是课堂论文,你通常会用到该领域常见的资料。但如果是高级项目、硕士论文或博士论文,那就需要拓展资料范围。例如,如果你的项目是关于16世纪晚期英国农业变革的经济影响,你可以阅读伊丽莎白时代以乡村人物为主角的戏剧,研究描绘农业生活的木刻版画,或者查找宗教人士对乡村社会行为的评论。反之,如果你研究的是18世纪伦敦日常生活的视觉呈现,你可以研究当时当地的经济史。当你跳出你所在领域或主题的标准资料范围时,你不仅能丰富你的分析,还能拓展你的知识面,提升你综合各种数据的能力——这对于一个求知者来说至关重要。不要忽略那些没有出现在你最相关资料书目中的相关作品——如果你找到了别人遗漏的优秀资料,你的原创性将获得认可。

For a class pa­per, you’ll prob­ably use the sources typ­ical in the field. But if you are do­ing an ad­vanced pro­ject, a mas­ter’s thesis, or a doc­toral dis­ser­ta­tion, search bey­ond them. If, for ex­ample, your pro­ject is on the eco­nomic ef­fects of ag­ri­cul­tural changes in late six­teenth-cen­tury Eng­land, you might read Eliza­bethan plays in­volving coun­try char­ac­ters, look at wood prints of ag­ri­cul­tural life, or find com­ment­ary by re­li­gious fig­ures on rural so­cial be­ha­vior. Con­versely, if you are work­ing on visual rep­res­ent­a­tions of daily life in eight­eenth-cen­tury Lon­don, you might re­search the eco­nomic his­tory of that time and place. When you look bey­ond the kinds of sources con­sidered stand­ard for your field or topic, you en­rich not only your ana­lysis but your range of in­tel­lec­tual ref­er­ence and your abil­ity to syn­thes­ize di­verse kinds of data, a cru­cial com­pet­ence of an in­quir­ing mind. Don’t ig­nore a work on your topic that is not men­tioned in the bib­li­o­graph­ies of your most rel­ev­ant sources—you will get credit for ori­gin­al­ity if you turn up a good source that oth­ers have missed.

3.6  利用人脉资源推进研究

3.6  Us­ing People to Fur­ther Your Re­search

二十一世纪研究的悖论之一是,即使新技术使我们能够获取前所未有的丰富资源,材料的获取变得更加便捷,研究也变得更加个性化。因此,在开展项目时,请不要忘记人的因素。

One of the para­doxes of twenty-first-cen­tury re­search is that even as new tech­no­lo­gies al­low us to ac­cess an un­pre­ced­en­ted wealth of ma­ter­i­als with ease, re­search has also be­come more per­sonal. So as you un­der­take your pro­ject, don’t for­get about the hu­man ele­ment.

最显而易见的是,人可以成为一手数据的来源,可以通过观察、调查或访谈收集。在利用人进行一手研究时,要发挥创造力:不要忽略当地企业、政府或公民组织中的人员。例如,如果您正在研究您所在城镇的“红线区”政策的社会和经济影响,您可以超越文件本身,询问当地居民是否有任何记忆或故事可以分享。我们无法在此详述访谈的复杂性(有很多相关指南可供参考),但请记住,您越是周密地计划要问的问题,就越能高效地获得所需信息。您不一定需要向受访者提出一份固定的问题清单——事实上,如果这让受访者不知所措,反而会适得其反。但要做好准备,避免漫无目的地提问。您可以随时重读一本书来弥补遗漏的内容,但您不能因为准备不足而反复回访受访者,最终一无所获。

Most ob­vi­ously, people can be sources of primary data, col­lec­ted through ob­ser­va­tion, sur­veys, or in­ter­views. Be cre­at­ive when us­ing people for primary re­search: don’t ig­nore people in local busi­ness, gov­ern­ment, or civic or­gan­iz­a­tions. For ex­ample, if you are re­search­ing the so­cial and eco­nomic ef­fects of red­lining in your town, you might go bey­ond the doc­u­ments to ask long­time res­id­ents whether they have any memor­ies or stor­ies to share. We can’t ex­plain the com­plex­it­ies of in­ter­view­ing here (there are many guides to that pro­cess), but re­mem­ber that the more thor­oughly you plan what you want to ask, the more ef­fi­ciently you will get what you need. You don’t ne­ces­sar­ily need to ask an in­ter­viewee a fixed list of ques­tions—in fact, that can be a bad idea if it makes the in­ter­viewee freeze up. But pre­pare so that you don’t ques­tion your source aim­lessly. You can al­ways re­read a book for what you missed, but you can’t keep go­ing back to people be­cause you didn’t pre­pare well enough to get what you needed the first time.

人们还可以引导你找到优质的二手资料,或者他们本身就是这些资料的来源。我们之前已经鼓励你与一类专家——参考咨询馆员——讨论你的研究。馆员是图书馆研究流程方面的专家。你也可以直接与你所研究领域的专家交流,从中获益。询问他们该领域有哪些重要的未解之谜。问问他们对你的研究项目或初步论文的看法。请他们推荐一些二手资料。供您阅读。这种个性化的指导对初级研究人员来说非常宝贵,许多专家也乐于与您交流(或者至少进行一些电子邮件沟通)。

People can also lead you to good sec­ond­ary sources or serve as such sources them­selves. We already en­cour­aged you to dis­cuss your re­search with one kind of ex­pert: a ref­er­ence lib­rar­ian. Lib­rar­i­ans are ex­perts on the pro­cesses of lib­rary re­search. You can also be­ne­fit from talk­ing dir­ectly with ex­perts on your topic. Ask them about the im­port­ant open ques­tions in the field. Ask them what they think of your pro­ject or pro­vi­sional thesis. Ask them to sug­gest sec­ond­ary sources for you to read. This kind of per­sonal guid­ance can be in­valu­able to a be­gin­ning re­searcher, and many ex­perts will be happy to talk with you (or at least en­gage in a little email cor­res­pond­ence).

我们每个人都曾在自己的研究中成功地提出过这类问题,也都曾帮助过联系我们的人。我们当中有人曾邀请一位著名学者给一群大学一年级学生讲解他的研究方法。他开场白说:“我其实没有什么固定的研究方法;我只是问问我那些聪明的同学该读些什么。”这位学者至少有点半开玩笑的意思,但我们都可以借鉴这些聪明朋友的经验,至少可以帮我们找到研究的切入点。

All of us have made these kinds of quer­ies with great suc­cess in our own re­search, and all of us have re­spon­ded to them in turn, by help­ing those who have con­tac­ted us. One of us once in­vited an em­in­ent scholar to talk about his re­search pro­cess to a group of first-year col­lege stu­dents. He began his talk by say­ing, “I don’t really have a re­search pro­cess; I just ask my smart friends what I should read.” This scholar was be­ing at least a bit tongue-in-cheek, but we could all do worse than to rely on such smart friends, at least to get us star­ted.

最后,在研究中使用人体时,务必遵循伦理规范(参见第17章)。高校越来越意识到,使用人体进行的研究可能会对他们造成伤害——不仅是身体上的伤害,还包括让他们感到难堪、侵犯他们的隐私等等。现在,每所高校都制定了负责任地开展直接或间接涉及人体的研究的指导方针,并设立了委员会来审查所有此类项目,无论这些项目是由学生还是专业研究人员完成的。这些保障措施的存在自有其道理:因为有些人,尤其是弱势群体,曾因一些研究人员自认为其研究工作至关重要,以至于可以无视甚至虐待他们所研究的人群和社区而遭受严重伤害。因此,不要将这些重要的审查机制视为繁琐的官僚程序。它们的设立是为了保护你、你的机构,以及最重要的,你的研究对象。

Fi­nally, when you use people in re­search, be sure to do so eth­ic­ally (see chapter 17). Col­leges and uni­ver­sit­ies have be­come in­creas­ingly aware that re­search us­ing people may harm them—not just phys­ic­ally but by em­bar­rass­ing them, vi­ol­at­ing their pri­vacy, and so on. Every col­lege and uni­ver­sity now has guidelines for the re­spons­ible con­duct of re­search dir­ectly or in­dir­ectly in­volving people, as well as a com­mit­tee that re­views all such pro­jects, whether done by stu­dents or pro­fes­sional re­search­ers. These safe­guards ex­ist for good reason: be­cause people, es­pe­cially the most vul­ner­able, have been griev­ously harmed by re­search­ers who be­lieved their work so im­port­ant that it jus­ti­fied dis­reg­ard for, or even ab­use of, the people and com­munit­ies they stud­ied. So don’t dis­miss these im­port­ant checks as so much bur­eau­cratic make-work. They are in place to pro­tect you, your in­sti­tu­tion, and, most im­port­ant, those you study.

▶ 小贴士:使用生成式人工智能

▶ Quick Tip: Us­ing Gen­er­at­ive Ar­ti­fi­cial In­tel­li­gence

2022年末,一种新型的“信息源”——一种能够根据问题和提示生成条理清晰的文本段落的生成式人工智能(AI)工具——免费在线发布。这项技术几乎肯定会彻底改变我们生活的方方面面,包括我们的研究、论证和沟通方式(这也是本书的重点关注领域)。我们无法预知具体将会发生哪些变化(尽管我们有一些推测),但我们可以提供一些通用原则,帮助您高效且合乎伦理地使用生成式人工智能。

In late 2022, a new kind of “source,” a gen­er­at­ive ar­ti­fi­cial in­tel­li­gence (AI) tool able to re­spond to ques­tions and prompts with pas­sages of co­gent text, be­came pub­licly avail­able for free on­line. This tech­no­logy will al­most cer­tainly re­vo­lu­tion­ize much about our lives, in­clud­ing how we re­search, ar­gue, and com­mu­nic­ate (the spe­cific con­cerns of this book). We can’t tell you what spe­cific changes are com­ing (al­though we have our spec­u­la­tions), but we can of­fer you some gen­eral prin­ciples that will help you use gen­er­at­ive AI pro­duct­ively and eth­ic­ally.

探索:每项新技术都会带来新的功能,也就是说,它能让你做一些以前难以做到甚至根本无法做到的事情。生成式人工智能也不例外:我们感受到它蕴藏的巨大潜力,但还不完全了解它的功能。所以,不妨大胆尝试,充分发挥它的性能。你可以向它提出关于你研究项目的问题,或者让它自己提出研究问题,看看它能生成什么。你可以用它来激发思考、生成信息、推荐其他资源,甚至生成一些你可能在论文中修改的文本。不尝试,你永远不会知道它能如何帮助你。

Ex­plore: Every new tech­no­logy is ac­com­pan­ied by new af­ford­ances, that is, things it al­lows you to do that you could not do as eas­ily, or at all, be­fore. Gen­er­at­ive AI is no ex­cep­tion: we have a sense of its mar­velous po­ten­tial, but we don’t yet know all that it can do. So play around with it. Put it through its paces. Ask it ques­tions about your re­search pro­ject or to come up with re­search ques­tions of its own, and see what it pro­duces. Use it to prod your think­ing, to gen­er­ate in­form­a­tion, to re­com­mend ad­di­tional sources, even to cre­ate text that you might re­vise as part of a pa­per. You won’t know how it can help you un­til you try.

沟通:正如我们尚未完全了解生成式人工智能的全部功能一样,我们目前也尚未就如何在研究和写作中恰当地使用生成式人工智能达成共识。如果你是一名学生,请与你的老师和导师讨论这个问题,并了解你所在学校的相关政策。如果你是一名研究人员,请与你所在研究领域的其他成员交流,了解你所在领域的专业协会或权威期刊认可哪些实践方法,并分享你自己的想法和建议。

Com­mu­nic­ate: Just as we don’t yet know all the af­ford­ances of gen­er­at­ive AI, we don’t yet have agreed-upon stand­ards for how and when it can be used ap­pro­pri­ately in re­search and writ­ing. If you are a stu­dent, dis­cuss that ques­tion with your teach­ers and ad­visers. Know your school’s policies. If you are a re­searcher, talk with other mem­bers of your re­search com­munity. Learn what prac­tices are en­dorsed by your field’s pro­fes­sional as­so­ci­ations or lead­ing journ­als. And share your own thoughts and sug­ges­tions.

坦诚相待:正如我们会不断发现生成式人工智能的合法新用途一样,也会有人不断发明新的方法来利用它来作弊。不要利用生成式人工智能伪造数据、解决本应无需此类辅助就能解决的问题、撰写冒充原创的文本等等。记住,作为一名研究人员、一名作家以及一个人,你的声誉和诚信是你最宝贵的财富。一条很好的经验法则是:如果你觉得……如果你不好意思告诉老师、导师或期刊编辑你是如何使用生成式人工智能的,那就不要那样使用它。

Be hon­est: Just as we’ll con­tinue to dis­cover new le­git­im­ate uses for gen­er­at­ive AI, so there are some who will con­tinue to in­vent new ways to use it to cheat. Don’t use gen­er­at­ive AI to falsify data, solve prob­lems you are sup­posed to solve without such as­sist­ance, draft text that you pass off as your own, and so on. Re­mem­ber that your repu­ta­tion and in­teg­rity are among your greatest as­sets, as a re­searcher and writer and as a per­son. A good rule of thumb is this: if you would feel un­com­fort­able telling a teacher, mentor, or journal ed­itor how you used gen­er­at­ive AI, don’t use it in that way.

保持批判性思维:生成式人工智能尚处于起步阶段,未来会越来越好。但就目前而言,它的结果并非总是可靠的。我们自己以及我们认识和信任的其他研究人员和学者都曾用与我们各自专业领域相关的问题对其进行过测试。我们发现,它能够生成有用的信息和见解,但也可能提供错误的事实、错误地归因引文,甚至捏造参考文献。因此,务必谨慎:要明白生成式人工智能功能强大但并非完美无缺,并使用其他方法验证你的结果。

Be crit­ical: Gen­er­at­ive AI is in its in­fancy, and it will get bet­ter and bet­ter. But right now, its res­ults are not al­ways re­li­able. We ourselves, and other re­search­ers and schol­ars we know and trust, have tested it by ask­ing it ques­tions re­lated to our own areas of ex­pert­ise. We’ve found that it can pro­duce use­ful in­form­a­tion and in­sights but that it can also of­fer false facts, misat­trib­ute quo­ta­tions, even make up ref­er­ences. So be care­ful: un­der­stand that gen­er­at­ive AI is power­ful but fal­lible, and con­firm your res­ults us­ing other meth­ods.

保持透明:让你的听众(无论是教师还是其他研究人员)清楚地了解你在研究和写作中是如何运用生成式人工智能的。我们建议——至少在相关规范形成之前——在口头或书面展示你的研究成果时,应像注明其他任何来源一样,说明你如何以及在多大程度上使用了生成式人工智能。如果你正在撰写论文,请在参考文献页或书目中添加相关说明。如果你正在进行演讲,可以考虑在演讲的开头或结尾简要致谢。

Be trans­par­ent: Let your audi­ence (whether a teacher or other re­search­ers) know ex­actly how you used gen­er­at­ive AI in your re­search and writ­ing. We sug­gest—at least un­til there are es­tab­lished con­ven­tions gov­ern­ing the mat­ter—that when present­ing your re­search or­ally or in writ­ing, you ac­know­ledge how and to what ex­tent you used gen­er­at­ive AI, just as you would ac­know­ledge any other source. If you are writ­ing a pa­per, in­clude a state­ment on your works cited page or in your bib­li­o­graphy. If you are de­liv­er­ing a present­a­tion, con­sider giv­ing a brief ac­know­ledg­ment at its be­gin­ning or end.

4个引人入胜的信息来源

4  En­ga­ging Sources

为了确保研究的可靠性,您必须公正、准确地使用资料来源。本章将阐述如何有效地利用资料来源,以及如何做好笔记,从而促进您的思考,并使您的读者在您引用或批判资料来源时能够信任您。

To make your re­search re­li­able, you must use your sources fairly and ac­cur­ately. In this chapter, we ex­plain how to en­gage your sources pro­duct­ively and how to take notes so that they fur­ther your think­ing and so that your audi­ence can trust you when you rely on or cri­tique a source.

本章将向您展示如何充分利用各种资料,尤其是二手资料。我们选择这个主题的原因很简单:我们可以就此提供一些实用且通用的建议。研究人员查找或创建数据的方式,以及受众期望获得的证据类型,因领域而异。历史学家和文学评论家通常会挖掘一手资料来寻找证​​据。然而,其他一些研究人员则完全不使用一手资料。根据研究领域的不同,他们可能会在实验室分析土壤样本、开展调查或构建计算机模型进行模拟。但每个领域都有其自身的二手资料,有时也被称为文献。所有领域的研究人员都会以类似的方式利用这些资料。

In this chapter, we show you how to get the most out of your sources, es­pe­cially your sec­ond­ary sources. We have chosen this fo­cus for a simple reason: it’s a topic on which we can of­fer use­ful, gen­eral ad­vice. The ways that re­search­ers find or cre­ate their data, and the kinds of data audi­ences ex­pect as evid­ence, vary wildly from field to field. His­tor­i­ans and lit­er­ary crit­ics typ­ic­ally mine primary sources for evid­ence. Other re­search­ers, how­ever, don’t use primary sources at all. De­pend­ing on their fields, they might ana­lyze soil samples in a lab, ad­min­is­ter a sur­vey, or build a com­puter model to con­duct sim­u­la­tions. But every field has its body of sec­ond­ary sources, some­times called its lit­er­at­ure. Re­search­ers in all fields en­gage these sources in sim­ilar ways.

如何运用二手资料取决于你研究项目的进展阶段。经验丰富的研究人员会定期阅读二手资料,以跟上领域内的最新研究动态,因此他们通常会在研究项目伊始就设定好问题或难题。但如果你对某个领域尚不熟悉,或者只有一个研究主题,你可能需要阅读大量资料才能找到值得探讨的问题,甚至需要阅读更多资料才能找到解决方案。本章将向你展示如何像经验丰富的研究人员那样阅读二手资料:不仅是为了获取可用于自身论证的数据,更重要的是为了从中发现能够激发你思考的问题、难题和论点。

How you use your sec­ond­ary sources de­pends on where you stand in your search for a pro­ject. Ex­per­i­enced re­search­ers read sec­ond­ary sources reg­u­larly to keep up with work in their fields, and so they usu­ally be­gin their pro­jects with a ques­tion or prob­lem in mind. But if you are new to a sub­ject or have only a topic, you may have to read a lot of sources to find a prob­lem to pur­sue and then even more to fig­ure out how to solve it. In this chapter, we show you how to read sec­ond­ary sources as ex­per­i­enced re­search­ers do: not just for data you can use in your own ar­gu­ment but more im­port­antly for ques­tions, prob­lems, and ar­gu­ments that spur your own think­ing.

4.1  记录完整的书目信息

4.1  Re­cord­ing Com­plete Bib­li­o­graphic In­form­a­tion

首先,一旦你确定某个资料值得阅读,务必记录下它的所有书目信息。在做任何其他事情之前,请务必这样做——这只需要片刻时间,而且我们保证,在你未来的职业生涯中,没有任何习惯比这更有益。

First things first: once you de­cide a source is worth read­ing, re­cord all of its bib­li­o­graphic in­form­a­tion. Do this be­fore you do any­thing else—it only takes a mo­ment, and we prom­ise that no habit will serve you bet­ter for the rest of your ca­reer.

你需要文献信息,不仅是为了方便回忆阅读内容,也是为了在写作时注明出处。在笔记中,你可以用任何你喜欢的格式记录文献信息——只要记录完整即可;在写作中引用文献时,你应该遵循你所在领域的标准引用格式(参见12.8)。大多数图书馆和数据库界面都允许你只需点击几下鼠标即可导出你选择的格式的引用。

You need the bib­li­o­graphic in­form­a­tion for your sources not only so that you can re­call what you have read, but also so that you can credit your sources when you write. In your own notes, you can re­cord bib­li­o­graphic data in whatever format you like—so long as your re­cords are com­plete; when you cite sources in your writ­ing, you should fol­low the cita­tion style of your field (see 12.8). Most lib­rar­ies and data­base in­ter­faces let you ex­port cita­tions in the format of your choice with a few clicks.

对于印刷书籍,记录

For print books, re­cord

  • ▪ 作者
  • ▪  au­thor(s)
  • ▪ 标题(包括副标题)
  • ▪  title (in­clud­ing sub­title)
  • ▪ 编辑和翻译人员(如有)
  • ▪  ed­itor(s) and trans­lator(s) (if any)
  • ▪ 版本(如果不是第一版的话)
  • ▪  edi­tion (if not the first)
  • ▪ 卷号(如有)
  • ▪  volume num­ber (if any)
  • ▪ 出版商
  • ▪  pub­lisher
  • ▪ 出版年份
  • ▪  year pub­lished
  • ▪ 所查阅章节的页码
  • ▪  page num­bers of chapters con­sul­ted
  • ▪ 图书馆索书号(如有)
  • ▪  lib­rary call num­ber (if any)
  • ▪ ISBN
  • ▪  ISBN

对于电子书,除了纸质书需要记录的内容之外,还要记录所有内容。

For ebooks, re­cord everything you would re­cord for a print book plus

  • ▪ 网址(如有)
  • ▪  URL (if any)
  • ▪ 数据库名称(如有)
  • ▪  name of data­base (if any)
  • ▪ 访问日期(如在线查阅)
  • ▪  date of ac­cess (if con­sul­ted on­line)
  • ▪ 本书的电子版
  • ▪  elec­tronic format of the book

对于印刷期刊文章,记录

For print journal art­icles, re­cord

  • ▪ 作者
  • ▪  au­thor(s)
  • 文章标题(包括副标题)
  • ▪  title (in­clud­ing sub­title) of art­icle
  • ▪ 期刊名称
  • ▪  title of journal
  • ▪ 卷号和期号
  • ▪  volume and is­sue num­ber
  • ▪ 日期
  • ▪  date
  • 文章页码
  • ▪  page num­bers of art­icle
  • ▪ 图书馆索书号(如有)
  • ▪  lib­rary call num­ber (if any)

对于在线期刊文章和其他类型的在线资源,请记录上述所有适用信息。另请记录

For on­line journal art­icles and other types of on­line sources, re­cord as much of the above as ap­plies. Also re­cord

  • ▪ URL,或者,如果来源有数字对象标识符(DOI),这是一个对该来源而言唯一的稳定代码(通常以 URL 的形式呈现,例如https://doi.org/)。
  • ▪  URL or, if the source has one, its di­gital ob­ject iden­ti­fier (DOI), a stable code unique to that source (of­ten presen­ted as a URL be­gin­ning with ht­tps://doi.org/)
  • ▪ 数据库名称(如有)
  • ▪  name of data­base (if any)
  • ▪ 网站所有者或赞助商
  • ▪  owner or spon­sor of the site
  • ▪ 访问日期
  • ▪  date of ac­cess

如果您在线访问印刷文本,请记录原始印刷品的书目数据以及您的在线访问来源。

If you ac­cess a prin­ted text on­line, re­cord bib­li­o­graphic data from the ori­ginal print­ing as well as your source of on­line ac­cess.

如果您扫描或复印了书中的一段文字,请同时扫描或复印其扉页和背面的书目信息。如果您知道图书馆的索书号,也请一并添加。引用文献时无需包含索书号,但有了索书号,以后需要时就能轻松找到该文献。

If you scan or pho­to­copy a pas­sage from a book, also scan or pho­to­copy its title page and the bib­li­o­graphic in­form­a­tion on the re­verse side. Then add the lib­rary call num­ber if you know it. You won’t need to in­clude the call num­ber when you cite the source, but hav­ing it will al­low you to find the source again eas­ily if you need it.

你或许觉得这个建议过于谨慎,但并非如此。没有什么比笔记里明明有一段完美的引文或数据,却因为没有完整记录出处而无法在写作或演讲中使用更令人沮丧的了。

You may think this ad­vice is overly cau­tious, but it isn’t. Noth­ing is more frus­trat­ing than hav­ing the per­fect quo­ta­tion or bit of data in your notes and be­ing un­able to use it in your writ­ing or present­a­tion be­cause you didn’t com­pletely doc­u­ment your source and can’t find it again.

4.2  积极调动信息来源

4.2  En­ga­ging Sources Act­ively

做笔记不仅仅是记录和积累资料来源和数据,更重要的是处理和理解它们。事实上,后者更为重要。如今,有了互联网和研究图书馆的数据库,你可以瞬间在屏幕上调出海量的资料。这不仅适用于二手资料,也适用于一手资料。(参见下一页关于威廉姆斯的轶事:如果他生活在今天,他很可能会发现租房者的名单已经被数字化,并向全球研究人员开放。)

Tak­ing notes is not just about re­cord­ing and ac­cu­mu­lat­ing sources and data; it’s also about pro­cessing and un­der­stand­ing them. In fact, this second pur­pose is the more im­port­ant one. Today, with ac­cess to the in­ter­net and the data­bases in a re­search lib­rary, you can sum­mon an in­finitude of sources to your screen in­stant­an­eously. This ap­plies not just to sec­ond­ary sources but also to primary ones. (See the an­ec­dote about Wil­li­ams on the next page: if he were writ­ing today, he’d quite likely find that the list of renters had been di­git­ized and made avail­able to re­search­ers world­wide.)

经验丰富的研究者深知,仅仅将资料记录在电子表格中或在浏览器标签页中打开,并不意味着他们已经理解了资料,或者资料对他们的思考有所助益。他们不会被动地阅读;他们会积极地与资料互动,与资料进行对话。如果可以,请将重要的资料阅读两遍。首先,要广泛阅读。注意那些激发你兴趣的内容。重读那些让你感到困惑或不解的段落。不要急于寻找异议,而是要以有助于理解资料的方式阅读。否则,如果资料提出了与你观点相悖的论点,你很可能会忍不住去强调它的不足之处。至少在一开始,要抵制这种诱惑。

Ex­per­i­enced re­search­ers know that just re­cord­ing a source in a spread­sheet or hav­ing it open in a browser tab doesn’t mean that they have un­der­stood it or that it has be­nefited their own think­ing. They don’t read pass­ively; they en­gage their sources act­ively, en­ter­ing into con­ver­sa­tion with them. If you can, read im­port­ant sources twice. First, read gen­er­ously. Pay at­ten­tion to what sparks your in­terest. Re­read pas­sages that puzzle or con­fuse you. Don’t look for dis­agree­ments right away, but read in ways that help the source make sense. Oth­er­wise, you’ll be temp­ted to em­phas­ize its weak­nesses if it presents an ar­gu­ment that rivals yours. Res­ist that tempta­tion, at least at first.

然后,如果你的资料​​来源看起来很重要,或者似乎挑战了你自己的观点,那就再慢一点、更批判地读一遍。阅读一段文字时,不仅要思考它说了什么,还要思考你会如何回应。把这些想法记录在你的笔记里,或者——如果你拥有这份资料来源或正在使用复印件——记录在资料来源的空白处。通过总结来检验你的理解:如果你无法在脑海中概括一段文字,说明你对它的理解还不够透彻,无法提出异议。

Then, if your source seems im­port­ant or seems to chal­lenge your own po­s­i­tion, read it a second time slowly and more crit­ic­ally. When you read a pas­sage, think not only about what it says but about how you would re­spond. Re­cord those re­sponses in your notes or—if you own the source or are work­ing from a copy—in the mar­gins of the source it­self. Test your un­der­stand­ing by sum­mar­iz­ing: if you can’t sum up a pas­sage in your mind, you don’t un­der­stand it well enough to dis­agree.

不要仅仅因为某个权威人士声称某件事就盲目接受。这种说法可能是错误的,或者根据资料来源的日期,可能已经过时。例如,较早的资料可能提到太阳系有九大行星,但如今这种说法就不正确了,因为冥王星在2006年被降级为“矮行星”。此外,还要明白专家之间经常存在分歧。如果专家A说了一件事,专家B可能会提出另一件事,而专家C可能会自称是专家,但实际上并非如此。当一些学生……一听到专家意见相左,人们就变得愤世嫉俗,把专家的知识斥为个人观点。但不要把围绕真正存在争议的问题展开的、经过深思熟虑的辩论误认为仅仅是个人意见。事实上,这恰恰是一个活跃领域的标志。

Don’t ac­cept a claim just be­cause an au­thor­ity as­serts it. That as­ser­tion may be wrong or, de­pend­ing on the date of the source, ob­sol­ete. For ex­ample, an older source might refer to the nine plan­ets of our solar sys­tem, but today that would be in­cor­rect, since in 2006 Pluto was de­moted to a “dwarf planet.” And un­der­stand that ex­perts fre­quently dis­agree. If ex­pert A says one thing, B will as­sert some­thing else, and C will claim to be an ex­pert but not ac­tu­ally be one. When some stu­dents hear ex­perts dis­agree, they be­come cyn­ical and dis­miss ex­pert know­ledge as just opin­ion. But don’t mis­take in­formed and thought­ful de­bate over le­git­im­ately con­tested is­sues for mere opin­ion. In fact, it’s the mark of an act­ive field.

如果你是一位资深研究者,务必核实所有对你的论点至关重要的信息的准确性。那些研究成果被他人引用的研究者常常会告诉你,他们的研究成果被错误报道、草率概括或受到无知批评。作者们经常给《纽约书评》和《纽约时报》的“书评”栏目写信,指出评论者是如何歪曲他们的观点或犯下事实错误来批评他们的。

If you are an ad­vanced re­searcher, check the ac­cur­acy of everything im­port­ant to your ar­gu­ment. Re­search­ers whose work has been used by oth­ers will tell you, as of­ten as not, that it was re­por­ted in­ac­cur­ately, sum­mar­ized care­lessly, or cri­ti­cized ig­nor­antly. Writers reg­u­larly write to the New York Re­view of Books and the “Book Re­view” of the New York Times, point­ing out how re­view­ers dis­tor­ted their ideas or made fac­tual er­rors cri­ti­ciz­ing them.

4.3  阅读理解问题

4.3  Read­ing for a Prob­lem

一旦确定了研究问题,就可以用它来指导你寻找证据、模型和论据。但如果你还没有确定研究问题,就无法知道哪些数据、模型或论据可能相关。因此,阅读资料时不要漫无目的,而是要有目的地寻找问题。寻找那些看似令人费解、不准确或过于简单的论断——任何你不认同的内容。当你对某个资料来源的观点持不同意见时,更有可能发现研究问题,但即使是在你认同的资料来源中,也可能发现问题。

Once you have a re­search prob­lem, use it to guide your search for evid­ence, mod­els, and ar­gu­ments to re­spond to. But if you don’t yet have one, you won’t know which data, mod­els, or ar­gu­ments might be rel­ev­ant. So read sources not ran­domly but de­lib­er­ately to find a prob­lem. Look for claims that seem puzz­ling, in­ac­cur­ate, or simplistic—any­thing you can dis­agree with. You’re more likely to find a re­search prob­lem when you dis­agree with a source, but you can also find one in sources you agree with.

4.3.1  寻求创意协议

4.3.1  Look for Cre­at­ive Agree­ment

如果你相信某个消息来源的说法,试着拓展一下:它可能涵盖哪些新案例?它能提供哪些新见解?是否存在消息来源尚未考虑到的佐证?以下是一些通过创造性地达成共识来发现问题的方法。

If you be­lieve what a source claims, try to ex­tend that claim: What new cases might it cover? What new in­sights can it provide? Is there con­firm­ing evid­ence the source hasn’t con­sidered? Here are some ways to find a prob­lem through cre­at­ive agree­ment.

  1. 1.提供补充证据。你可以提供新的证据来支持消息来源的说法。
    1. 史密斯用轶事来证明“铆钉女工罗西”在 20 世纪 80 年代重新成为女权主义的象征,但杂志上的图片提供了更好的文献证据。
    2. ▪ 来源用旧证据支持论点,但你提供了新证据。
    3. ▪ 来源提供的证据薄弱,但你提供的证据更有力。
    4. 2.证实未经证实的说法。你可以证明某些信息来源仅仅是假设或推测的事情。
    5. 史密斯建议通过可视化来提高运动表现,但对运动员心理活动的 fMRI 研究提供了证据,表明为什么这是一个好建议。
    6. ▪ 消息来源推测_____________可能是真的,但你提供了证据来证明它是真的。
    7. ▪ 来源假设____________为真,但你可以证明它是正确的。
    8. 3.将主张扩大适用范围。你可以扩展立场。
    9. 史密斯认为,用多种比喻来解释生理过程比只用一种比喻更能帮助医学生理解。这似乎也适用于工程和法律专业的学生。
    10. ▪ 来源正确地将____________应用于一种情况,但你将其应用于新的情况。
    11. ▪ 资料来源声称____________在特定情况下是正确的,但你证明它普遍是正确的。
  2. 1. Of­fer ad­di­tional sup­port. You can of­fer new evid­ence to sup­port a source’s claim.
    1. Smith uses an­ec­dotes to show that Rosie the Riv­eter re­sur­faced as a fem­in­ist sym­bol in the 1980s, but im­ages from magazines of­fer bet­ter doc­u­ment­ary evid­ence.
    2. ▪  Source sup­ports a claim with old evid­ence, but you of­fer new evid­ence.
    3. ▪  Source sup­ports a claim with weak evid­ence, but you of­fer stronger evid­ence.
    4. 2. Con­firm un­sup­por­ted claims. You can prove some­thing that a source only as­sumes or spec­u­lates about.
    5. Smith re­com­mends visu­al­iz­a­tion to im­prove sports per­form­ance, but fMRI stud­ies of the men­tal activ­it­ies of ath­letes of­fer evid­ence that shows why that is good ad­vice.
    6. ▪  Source spec­u­lates _____________ might be true, but you of­fer evid­ence to show that it is.
    7. ▪  Source as­sumes ____________ is true, but you can prove it.
    8. 3. Ap­ply a claim more widely. You can ex­tend a po­s­i­tion.
    9. Smith ar­gues that med­ical stu­dents learn physiolo­gical pro­cesses bet­ter when they are ex­plained with many meta­phors rather than with just one. The same seems true for en­gin­eer­ing and law stu­dents.
    10. ▪  Source cor­rectly ap­plies ____________ to one situ­ation, but you ap­ply it to new ones.
    11. ▪  Source claims that ____________ is true in a spe­cific situ­ation, but you show it’s true in gen­eral.

4.3.2  寻找创造性分歧

4.3.2  Look for Cre­at­ive Dis­agree­ment

如果你积极阅读,就不可避免地会发现自己与某些信息来源存在分歧。不要忽视这些分歧,因为它们往往指向新的研究方向。可以留意以下几种类型(此列表并不完整,且某些类型相互重叠):

If you read act­ively, you’ll in­ev­it­ably find your­self dis­agree­ing with your sources. Don’t brush those dis­agree­ments aside, be­cause they of­ten point to new re­search prob­lems. Look for these types (the list is not ex­haust­ive, and some kinds over­lap):

  1. 1.关于分类或定义的分歧。有的资料说某物是一种类型,但它实际上是另一种类型。
    1. 史密斯说涂鸦只是破坏公物,但最好将其理解为一种公共艺术形式。
    2. ▪ 资料来源声称____________是一种____________,但事实并非如此。
    3. ▪ 资料声称____________总是具有____________作为其特征或品质之一,但事实并非如此。
    4. ▪ 来源声称____________是正常的/好的/重要的/有用的/道德的/有趣的,但事实并非如此。
    5. 你可以反过来推翻这些说法以及后面的说法,从而得出相反的结论:
    6. ▪ 虽然有资料称____________不是一种____________,但我可以证明它是。
    7. 2.关于部分与整体的分歧。你可以指出某个信息来源错误地描述了事物各部分之间的关​​系。
    8. 史密斯认为编程与博雅教育无关,但事实上,编程至关重要。
    9. ▪ 消息来源声称____________是____________的一部分,但事实并非如此。
    10. ▪ 资料声称____________的一部分与另一部分以某种方式相关,但事实并非如此。
    11. ▪ 资料声称每个____________都有____________作为其组成部分之一,但事实并非如此。
    12. 3.关于历史或发展的分歧。你可以指出某个资料来源对某个主题的起源或发展存在错误。
    13. 史密斯认为悲剧源于宗教仪式,但事实并非如此。
    14. ▪ 消息来源声称__________正在发生变化,但事实并非如此。
    15. ▪ 资料声称__________起源于__________,但事实并非如此。
    16. ▪ 消息来源声称__________以某种方式发展,但事实并非如此。
    17. 4.关于因果关系的分歧。你可以指出某个信息来源误解了因果关系。尤其要注意因果关系(A导致B)与相关性(A与B同时发生)的混淆。
    18. 史密斯声称学校代金券计划不会减少公立学校的资金,但三个试行此类计划的学区的证据表明,事实并非如此。
    19. ▪ 资料声称____________导致____________,但事实并非如此/它们都是由____________引起的。
    20. ▪ 消息来源声称____________足以导致____________,但事实并非如此。
    21. ▪ 资料来源声称____________只会导致____________,但它也会导致____________。
    22. 5.观点分歧。大多数分歧并不会改变概念框架,但当你反对某种“标准”观点时,你就是在促使他人以新的方式思考。
    23. 史密斯认为广告只有经济功能,但它也可以作为新艺术形式的实验室。
    24. ▪ 来源从________________的角度讨论了________________,但新的背景或观点揭示了新的真理[新的或旧的背景可以是社会的、政治的、哲学的、历史的、经济的、伦理的、性别特定的等等]。
    25. ▪ 资料来源运用理论/价值体系分析________________,但你可以从新的角度分析它,并以新的方式看待它。
  2. 1. Dis­agree­ments about clas­si­fic­a­tion or defin­i­tion. A source says some­thing is one kind of thing, but it is an­other.
    1. Smith says that graf­fiti is merely van­dal­ism, but it is bet­ter un­der­stood as a form of pub­lic art.
    2. ▪  Source claims that ____________ is a kind of ____________, but it’s not.
    3. ▪  Source claims that ____________ al­ways has ____________ as one of its fea­tures or qual­it­ies, but it doesn’t.
    4. ▪  Source claims that ____________ is nor­mal/good/sig­ni­fic­ant/use­ful/moral/in­ter­est­ing, but it’s not.
    5. You can re­verse those claims and the ones that fol­low to state the op­pos­ite:
    6. ▪  Though a source says ____________ is not a kind of ____________, I can show that it is.
    7. 2. Dis­agree­ments about parts and wholes. You can show that a source mis­takes how the parts of some­thing are re­lated.
    8. Smith has ar­gued that cod­ing is ir­rel­ev­ant to a lib­eral edu­ca­tion, but, in fact, it is es­sen­tial.
    9. ▪  Source claims that ____________ is a part of ____________, but it’s not.
    10. ▪  Source claims that one part of ____________ relates to an­other in a cer­tain way, but it doesn’t.
    11. ▪  Source claims that every ____________ has ____________ as one of its parts, but it doesn’t.
    12. 3. Dis­agree­ments about his­tory or de­vel­op­ment. You can show that a source mis­takes the ori­gin or de­vel­op­ment of a topic.
    13. Smith ar­gues that tragedy de­veloped from re­li­gious ritual, but it didn’t.
    14. ▪  Source claims that __________ is chan­ging, but it’s not.
    15. ▪  Source claims that __________ ori­gin­ated in __________, but it didn’t.
    16. ▪  Source claims that __________ de­veloped in a cer­tain way, but it didn’t.
    17. 4. Dis­agree­ments about cause and ef­fect. You can show that a source mis­takes a causal re­la­tion­ship. Be es­pe­cially alert to con­fu­sions of caus­a­tion (A res­ults in B) with cor­rel­a­tion (A oc­curs sim­ul­tan­eously with B).
    18. Smith claims that school voucher pro­grams don’t de­crease fund­ing to pub­lic schools, but evid­ence from three school dis­tricts that tried such pro­grams sug­gests that they do.
    19. ▪  Source claims that ____________ causes ____________, but it doesn’t/they are both caused by ____________.
    20. ▪  Source claims that ____________ is suf­fi­cient to cause ____________, but it’s not.
    21. ▪  Source claims that ____________ causes only ____________, but it also causes ____________.
    22. 5. Dis­agree­ments of per­spect­ive. Most dis­agree­ments do not change a con­cep­tual frame­work, but when you op­pose a “stand­ard” view of things, you urge oth­ers to think in a new way.
    23. Smith as­sumes that ad­vert­ising has only an eco­nomic func­tion, but it also serves as a labor­at­ory for new art forms.
    24. ▪  Source dis­cusses ________________ from the point of view of ________________, but a new con­text or point of view re­veals a new truth [the new or old con­text can be so­cial, polit­ical, philo­soph­ical, his­tor­ical, eco­nomic, eth­ical, gender spe­cific, etc.].
    25. ▪  Source ana­lyzes ________________ us­ing the­ory/value sys­tem ________________, but you can ana­lyze it from a new point of view and see it in a new way.

4.4  阅读论证

4.4  Read­ing for Ar­gu­ments

经验丰富的研究人员也会通过阅读来改进自己的论点,他们会考虑其他人的相反观点,并乐于接受其他人的论点,将其作为推理和分析的模型。

Ex­per­i­enced re­search­ers also read to im­prove their own ar­gu­ments by ac­count­ing for the op­pos­ing views of oth­ers and by be­ing open to ar­gu­ments of oth­ers as mod­els of reas­on­ing and ana­lysis.

4.4.1  阅读需要回应的论点

4.4.1  Read for Ar­gu­ments to Re­spond To

任何论证只有在承认并回应听众预期的疑问和异议之后,才算完整。你可以在二手资料中找到一些与之相悖的观点。他们提出了哪些与你论点不同的替代方案?他们引用了哪些你必须承认的证据?一些新晋研究者认为,如果提及任何与自己观点相悖的观点,就会削弱自己的论证。事实恰恰相反。当你承认他人的观点时,你不仅表明你了解这些观点,而且表明你认真思考过这些观点,并能自信地回应它们(更多内容请参见第九章)。

No ar­gu­ment is com­plete un­til it ac­know­ledges and re­sponds to its audi­ence’s pre­dict­able ques­tions and dis­agree­ments. You can find some of those com­pet­ing views in sec­ond­ary sources. What al­tern­at­ives to your claims do they of­fer? What evid­ence do they cite that you must ac­know­ledge? Some new re­search­ers think that they weaken their case if they men­tion any views op­pos­ing their own. The op­pos­ite is true. When you ac­know­ledge the views of oth­ers, you show that you not only know those views, but have care­fully con­sidered and can con­fid­ently re­spond to them (for more on this, see chapter 9).

经验丰富的研究者也会利用这些不同的观点来完善自己的观点。只有理解了理性的人为何会持有不同观点,你才能真正理解自己的想法。因此,在寻找资料时,不要只关注那些支持你论点的资料。要留意那些挑战你论点的资料。如果这些资料为你的受众所熟知,那么通过引用它们,你就能提升自己作为研究者的信誉。如果它们并不为人所知,那么你通过引入新的声音和视角,也为你的学术界做出了宝贵的贡献。

Ex­per­i­enced re­search­ers also use those com­pet­ing views to im­prove their own. You can’t really un­der­stand what you think un­til you un­der­stand why a ra­tional per­son might think dif­fer­ently. So as you look for sources, don’t look just for those that sup­port your claims. Be alert for sources that chal­lenge them. If those sources are well known to your audi­ence, you in­crease your cred­ib­il­ity as a re­searcher by en­ga­ging them. If they are not, you do a valu­able ser­vice to your re­search com­munity by bring­ing new voices and per­spect­ives into the con­ver­sa­tion.

4.4.2  阅读推理和分析模型

4.4.2  Read for Mod­els of Reas­on­ing and Ana­lysis

你还可以用另一种方式利用二手资料:将其作为推理和分析的范例。如果你从未提出过类似你计划提出的论点,你可以借鉴二手资料中其他论点的模式。你不能直接使用具体的观点(那样就构成抄袭),但借鉴其他资料的论证方式或数据分析方法并不构成抄袭。不必担心将其他资料作为范例会让你的研究显得缺乏原创性。研究论证的方法和推理方式往往缺乏原创性。读者会关注你的问题、论点和证据的原创性。

You can use sec­ond­ary sources in an­other way as well: as mod­els of reas­on­ing and ana­lysis. If you have never made an ar­gu­ment like the one you plan to, you might fol­low the pat­tern of other ar­gu­ments that you find in your sec­ond­ary sources. You can’t use spe­cific ideas (that would be pla­gi­ar­ism), but you do not pla­gi­ar­ize a source when you bor­row its ways of ar­guing or of ana­lyz­ing data. Don’t worry that us­ing a source as a model will make your re­search seem un­ori­ginal. Re­search ar­gu­ments are of­ten un­ori­ginal in their meth­ods and ways of reas­on­ing. Read­ers will look for ori­gin­al­ity in your prob­lem, claim, and evid­ence.

假设你想论证,美国第一个感恩节的故事之所以流传至今,是因为它服务于创造者和传承者的政治利益,也因为它满足了那些不断传颂它的人们的情感需求。你需要提出与你的论点相符的理由和证据,但你可以借鉴其他关于真实或虚构传说的类似论证中提出的问题。如果,例如,如果某个资料表明亚瑟王传说如何影响了英国社会和政治,你也可以用类似的论证来探讨感恩节与美国的关系。你无需引用资料来源,但为了增强论证的可信度,你可以指出该资料的论点与你的论点相似:

Sup­pose you want to ar­gue that the Amer­ican story of the first Thanks­giv­ing thrived be­cause it served the polit­ical in­terests of those who cre­ated it and con­trib­uted to it over time and be­cause it sat­is­fied the emo­tional needs of those who re­peated it. You will need reas­ons and evid­ence unique to your claim, but you can raise the kinds of is­sues that are in sim­ilar ar­gu­ments about other le­gends, real or fic­tional. If, for ex­ample, a source shows how the King Ar­thur le­gend helped to shape Eng­lish so­ci­ety and polit­ics, you might make a sim­ilar ar­gu­ment about Thanks­giv­ing and the United States. You are not ob­liged to cite your model, but to gain cred­ib­il­ity, you might note that it makes an ar­gu­ment sim­ilar to yours:

正如亚瑟王传说帮助塑造了英国鲜明的社会和政治身份一样(Weiman 2019),第一个感恩节的故事也是如此……

Just as the Ar­thur­ian le­gends helped to forge a defin­it­ively Eng­lish so­cial and polit­ical iden­tity (Wei­man 2019), so the story of the first Thanks­giv­ing . . .

4.5  阅读数据和支持

4.5  Read­ing for Data and Sup­port

你可以利用二手资料查找数据,作为证据并支持你的论点。

You can use sec­ond­ary sources to loc­ate data to use as evid­ence and to sup­port your ar­gu­ment.

4.5.1  阅读数据以用作证据

4.5.1  Read for Data to Use as Evid­ence

初级研究人员通常会查阅二手资料来获取数据,但如果可以,最好还是查阅一手资料。例如,如果某个重要的引文在其原始形式和上下文中可以找到,那么不去查找它就是一种冒险的学术捷径。你不必认同某个资料来源的观点才能使用其数据;事实上,只要数据与你的研究问题相关,即使其论点与你的研究问题无关也无妨。但是,只有当你能够自行判断统计数据的收集和分析是否恰当时,才能使用这些数据。

Be­gin­ning re­search­ers reg­u­larly mine sec­ond­ary sources for data, but if you can, check the primary source. If, for ex­ample, an im­port­ant quo­ta­tion is avail­able in its ori­ginal form and con­text, it’s a risky in­tel­lec­tual short­cut not to look it up. You don’t have to agree with a source to use its data; in fact, its ar­gu­ment does not even have to be rel­ev­ant to your ques­tion, so long as its data are. How­ever, use stat­ist­ical data only if you can judge for your­self whether they were col­lec­ted and ana­lyzed ap­pro­pri­ately.

但需要提醒的是:务必注明所参考的来源。一些初级研究人员认为,当他们使用二手资料中的数据时,应该引用原始的一手资料(也有人持相反观点)。但无论哪种情况,他们都只对了一半。如果你只引用一手资料,就等于暗示你是自己查阅的资料。如果你只引用二手资料,就等于暗示它是你数据的最终来源。正确的做法是,同时引用二手资料和一手资料。例如,如果你在 Wong 的文章中使用了 Anderson 撰写的一手资料作为二手资料,那么你的引用(APA 格式)应该是这样的:(Wong, 1989, p. 45; quoted in Anderson, 2015, p. 19)。

But a word of cau­tion: Al­ways cite the source you con­sult. Some be­gin­ning re­search­ers think that when they use data re­por­ted in a sec­ond­ary source, they should cite the ori­ginal, primary source (and some think the op­pos­ite). But they are only half right in both cases. If you cite just the primary source, you im­ply that you con­sul­ted that source your­self. If you cite just the sec­ond­ary source, you im­ply it is the ul­ti­mate source of your data. In­stead, you should cite both sources. For ex­ample, if you use a sec­ond­ary source writ­ten by An­der­son for primary data in an art­icle by Wong, your cita­tion (in APA style) would look like this: (Wong, 1989, p. 45; quoted in An­der­son, 2015, p. 19).

引用的作用之一是方便读者追溯你的研究路径。在某些学科,尤其是科学领域,研究论文中会包含链接,有时甚至会用链接代替引用。常规引用方式。有些老师也接受甚至更喜欢使用链接而不是引用,因为链接能让他们更轻松高效地查阅学生的参考文献。如果您考虑使用链接代替或补充引用,请先查阅您所在领域的惯例或咨询您的老师。

A func­tion of cita­tions is to al­low read­ers to re­trace your steps, should they want to do so. In some dis­cip­lines, es­pe­cially in the sci­ences, re­search pub­lic­a­tions in­clude links as well as or even in­stead of con­ven­tional cita­tions. Some teach­ers also ac­cept or even prefer links in­stead of cita­tions be­cause those links al­low them to re­view their stu­dents’ sources eas­ily and ef­fi­ciently. If you are con­sid­er­ing us­ing links in­stead of or in ad­di­tion to cita­tions, check the con­ven­tions of your field or with your teacher.

4.5.2  阅读以查找可作为依据的主张

4.5.2  Read for Claims to Use as Sup­port

研究人员经常利用二手资料中的结果来强化自己的论点。如果你发现一个有用的论断,可以引用它来支持自己的观点,尤其是在该论断已被充分论证并被广泛接受的情况下。但许多论断仅仅表明另一位研究人员与你的观点一致。要将此类论断作为证据,你不仅需要报告来源的结论,还需要报告其推理过程和支撑证据。换句话说,你必须让读者有机会自行判断你选择引用的他人证据的相关性和可靠性。

Re­search­ers of­ten use the res­ults they find in sec­ond­ary sources to bol­ster their own ar­gu­ments. If you find a use­ful claim, you can cite it to sup­port your own, es­pe­cially if it has been well sup­por­ted and widely ac­cep­ted. But many claims show noth­ing more than that an­other re­searcher agrees with you. To use such claims as evid­ence, you have to re­port not only the con­clu­sion of the source but its reas­on­ing and sup­port­ing evid­ence as well. In other words, you have to give your audi­ence the op­por­tun­ity to judge for them­selves the rel­ev­ance and the re­li­ab­il­ity of the evid­ence you choose to use from oth­ers.

4.6  系统地记笔记

4.6  Tak­ing Notes Sys­tem­at­ic­ally

一旦找到你认为可以使用的资料,就必须认真、有目的地阅读。但如果你之后找不到它,或者记不住足够多的内容,那一切都将徒劳无功。所以,再次强调,在做任何其他事情之前,务必记录下资料的完整书目信息。然后,以一种不仅能帮助你记住和运用所读内容,还能促进你自身思考的方式做笔记。认真、系统地记笔记还能避免无意中抄袭(参见第12章和17章)。

Once you find a source that you think you can use, you must read it care­fully and pur­pose­fully. But that will do you little good if you can’t loc­ate it later or re­mem­ber it well enough to use. So again, be­fore you do any­thing else, re­cord the source’s full bib­li­o­graphic in­form­a­tion. Then take notes in a way that will help you not only to re­mem­ber and use what you have read but also to fur­ther your own think­ing. Care­ful, sys­tem­atic note-tak­ing will also pro­tect you from in­ad­vert­ent pla­gi­ar­ism (see chapters 12 and 17).

你可以用电子方式记笔记,例如下载并注释PDF文件,或者收藏有用的网站。你也可以手写笔记,比如在电脑、平板电脑或手机上手动输入,甚至写在索引卡片或笔记本上。同样,你可以使用在线参考文献管理系统、电子表格、电脑上的文件夹,甚至鞋盒来整理笔记。每种方法都有其优缺点。你需要了解它们,并选择最适合你的方法。

You can take notes elec­tron­ic­ally, for ex­ample, by down­load­ing and an­not­at­ing PDFs or by book­mark­ing use­ful web­sites. You can also take notes by hand, manu­ally typ­ing them into your com­puter, tab­let, or phone, or even writ­ing them out on in­dex cards or in a note­book. Sim­il­arly, you can or­gan­ize your notes us­ing an on­line ref­er­ence-man­age­ment sys­tem, a spread­sheet, a folder on your com­puter, or even a shoe­box. Each of these ap­proaches has its ad­vant­ages and dis­ad­vant­ages. You need to un­der­stand them and pick the ap­proach that will work best for you.

4.6.1  用纸笔做笔记

4.6.1  Tak­ing Notes on Pa­per

多年前,记录资料的标准方法是创建一个索引卡片文件:

Years ago, the stand­ard way to take notes on sources was to cre­ate a file of in­dex cards:

一张索引卡片记录了来自某资料的信息,内容涉及咒骂及其在经济中的作用。卡片左上角是作者沙曼(Sharman)的名字,旁边是简短的标题“咒骂”(Swearing)和页码133。右上角是关键词:历史、经济学和性别(Gender),其中“性别”后面加了一个问号。卡片正文包含来自该资料的注释,指出咒骂在十八世纪开始成为一个经济问题。卡片引用了1751年7月《绅士杂志》(Gentleman's Magazine)的一段摘录(未注明页码),讲述了一位妇女因无力支付一先令的咒骂罚款而被判处十天苦役的故事。卡片还记录了这样一段直接引语:“一位固执的经济学家几乎认真考虑过通过发起一场反对富裕的咒骂阶层的运动来增加国家资源。”与引文明显区分开来的研究者提出了一些评论和思考,以期进行更深入的研究:如何看待当今的脏话问题,将其视为一个经济问题?使用脏话的喜剧演员是否更受欢迎?电影是否更写实?这其中是否涉及性别问题?十八世纪的男性和女性被罚款的频率是否相同?左下角记录了该文献的索书号:GT3080-slash-S6。

左上角是作者、简短标题和页码。右上角是关键词,方便研究人员将笔记分类和排序。卡片正文总结资料来源,记录直接引语(如适用),并包含研究人员的问题和解答。这样的卡片或许看起来有些过时,但它提供了一个高效的笔记模板:

At the top left is the au­thor, short title, and page num­ber(s). At the top right are keywords that let the re­searcher sort and re-sort notes into dif­fer­ent cat­egor­ies and or­ders. The body of the card sum­mar­izes the source, re­cords a dir­ect quo­ta­tion (where ap­pro­pri­ate), and in­cludes the re­searcher’s ques­tions and re­sponses. A card like this may seem old-fash­ioned, but it provides a tem­plate for ef­fi­cient note-tak­ing:

  • ▪ 记录每个来源的完整书目信息,以便正确引用并轻松再次找到它。
  • ▪  Re­cord com­plete bib­li­o­graphic in­form­a­tion for each source so that you can cite it prop­erly and find it again eas­ily.
  • ▪ 即使来自同一来源,也要对不同主题进行单独记录。
  • ▪  Sep­ar­ate notes on dif­fer­ent top­ics, even if they come from the same source.
  • ▪ 务必确保笔记准确无误,因为之后需要用到。如果要引用多行文字,请复制或保存段落或整个文档。注意转录错误:手抄或打字引用时,即使你自认为很仔细,也很容易出错。(这种转录的风险也正是其优势所在——当你真正手写或打字引用,而不是简单地复制粘贴时,你必须认真思考。)
  • ▪  Make sure your notes are ac­cur­ate be­cause you need to be able to rely on them later. If you want to quote more than a few lines, copy or save the pas­sage or the whole doc­u­ment. Be alert for tran­scrip­tion er­rors: when hand-copy­ing or typ­ing out quo­ta­tions, it is sur­pris­ingly easy to al­ter their word­ing, even when you think you are be­ing care­ful. (This risk in tran­scrip­tion is tied to its be­ne­fit—when you ac­tu­ally write or type out a quo­ta­tion, rather than just copy­ing-and-past­ing it, you have to think about it.)
  • ▪ 不仅要记录来源的说法,还要记录你发现的任何数据或佐证。
  • ▪  Re­cord not only the source’s claim but any data or sup­port you find in­ter­est­ing.
  • ▪ 记录下你的赞同、反对、推测、疑问等等。你是否发现原文论证中存在任何复杂之处或矛盾之处?原文是否提出了任何问题?这将促使你超越简单的记录阅读内容。
  • ▪  Note your agree­ments, dis­agree­ments, spec­u­la­tions, ques­tions, and so on. Do you see any com­plic­a­tions or con­tra­dic­tions in the source’s ar­gu­ment? Did the source raise any ques­tions? That will en­cour­age you to do more than simply re­cord the con­tent of what you read.
  • ▪  务必清晰区分:(1) 引自原文的内容;(2) 转述或总结原文的内容;(3) 你自己的想法。如果用纸笔书写,请使用标题、括号或不同颜色的墨水来区分这些不同类型的笔记。如果使用电脑或在线记笔记,请使用不同的字体或颜色。你必须明确区分自己的文字和原文,因为两者很容易混淆。
  • ▪  Clearly dis­tin­guish (1) what you quote from a source, (2) what you para­phrase or sum­mar­ize from a source, and (3) your own thoughts. If you are writ­ing on pa­per, use head­ings or brack­ets or dif­fer­ent col­ors of ink to dif­fer­en­ti­ate these dif­fer­ent kinds of note. If you are us­ing a com­puter or tak­ing notes on­line, use dif­fer­ent fonts or dif­fer­ent col­ors of type. You must un­am­bigu­ously dis­tin­guish your own words from those of your sources be­cause it is so easy to con­fuse the two.

你或许会疑惑,既然可以直接用电子设备记录笔记,为什么还要费劲用纸笔呢?纸质笔记虽然存储、备份、索引和检索起来都很麻烦,但仍然有其用武之地。例如,笔记本或索引卡片价格低廉且便于携带,而且纸张有时能胜任科技无法企及的工作——有些档案馆仍然要求读者用纸笔做笔记。一些研究人员继续依赖纸质笔记的主要原因在于,它们有助于思考。由于不可能把所有内容都写下来,使用纸张会迫使你思考哪些内容最为重要。同样,如果你的笔记写在卡片或纸张上,你可以将它们分组、打乱顺序,或者摊放在桌子、台面甚至地板上。而且,记录笔记的过程本身不仅能帮助你记住笔记的内容,还能帮助你发现其中的联系,并发展出自己的想法。

Why, you might won­der, would any­one bother with pa­per notes when they could just type their notes into a device? As cum­ber­some as pa­per notes can be to store, back up, in­dex, and ac­cess, they still have their uses. For ex­ample, a note­book or pack of in­dex cards is cheap and port­able, and pa­per can some­times go where tech­no­logy can­not—some archives still re­quire pat­rons to take notes with pa­per and pen­cil. The main reason some re­search­ers con­tinue to rely on pa­per notes is that they help with think­ing. Since you can’t write out everything, us­ing pa­per forces you to think about what is most im­port­ant. Like­wise, if your notes are on cards or sheets of pa­per, you can group them, shuffle them, or lay them out on a desk, a table, or even the floor. And the very act of writ­ing out your notes can help you not only re­mem­ber what is in them but also see con­nec­tions and de­velop your own ideas.

然而,如今很少有研究人员完全依赖纸质笔记。大多数人也会同时使用电子笔记,他们虽然会在纸上思考,但会利用电子笔记来确保引文、参考文献和注释的准确性。

Still, very few re­search­ers today rely on pa­per notes alone. Most take notes elec­tron­ic­ally as well, think­ing on pa­per but us­ing elec­tronic notes to en­sure the ac­cur­acy of their quo­ta­tions, ref­er­ences, and cita­tions.

4.6.2  电子笔记

4.6.2  Tak­ing Notes Elec­tron­ic­ally

当您使用电脑、平板电脑、手机或其他电子设备做笔记时,您有多种选择:

When you take notes us­ing a com­puter, tab­let, phone, or other elec­tronic device, you have sev­eral op­tions:

  • 您可以使用 Word 或 Google Docs 等程序。为每个来源创建一个单独的文件(或至少单独一页),并确保为了明确区分自己的文字和来源文字,这类程序虽然易于使用,但也限制了你对笔记进行索引、整理、排序和搜索的能力。尤其对于篇幅较长或较为复杂的项目,你可能需要考虑其他方案。
  • ▪  You can use a pro­gram like Word or Google Docs. Cre­ate a sep­ar­ate file (or at least a sep­ar­ate page) for each source, and be sure to un­am­bigu­ously dis­tin­guish your own words from those of your source. Such pro­grams are easy to use, but they also limit your abil­ity to in­dex, or­gan­ize, sort, and search your notes. For long or com­plex pro­jects es­pe­cially, you may want to con­sider other op­tions.
  • 您可以使用专门的笔记应用程序来创建和整理笔记。这类应用程序可以帮助您索引、排序和访问笔记,但由于它们有时使用专有格式,因此可能会使您难以导出笔记或将其与其他程序一起使用。
  • ▪  You can use a ded­ic­ated note-tak­ing ap­plic­a­tion to cre­ate and or­gan­ize your notes. Such ap­plic­a­tions can help you to in­dex, sort, and ac­cess your notes, but since they some­times use pro­pri­et­ary formats, they can some­times make it dif­fi­cult for you to ex­port your notes or use them with other pro­grams.
  • 您可以使用功能齐全的文献管理系统。除了帮助您做笔记外,这些程序通常还能直接从在线图书馆目录和数据库中提取信息,并在您写作时自动格式化和更新您的引文和参考文献。有些系统甚至会将您所有参考文献的完整电子版存储在参考文献管理系统中,帮助您构建和维护个人参考文献库。但与笔记应用程序一样,这些系统有时也使用专有格式——您需要学习如何使用它们。
  • ▪  You can use a full-fea­tured cita­tion-man­age­ment sys­tem. In ad­di­tion to help­ing you make your notes, these pro­grams can of­ten pull in­form­a­tion dir­ectly from on­line lib­rary cata­logs and data­bases, and they can format and up­date your cita­tions and bib­li­o­graph­ies when you write. Some will even store full elec­tronic cop­ies of your sources within the ref­er­ence-man­age­ment sys­tem, help­ing you build and main­tain your per­sonal lib­rary of sources. But like note-tak­ing ap­plic­a­tions, these sys­tems some­times use pro­pri­et­ary formats—and you have to learn to use them.

这三种类型的应用程序均提供网页版,这意味着应用程序和您的笔记并非存储在您自己的计算机上,而是存储在云端。这可以保护您的数据免遭意外丢失或损坏,并有助于您与其他研究人员共享信息和协作。

All three types of ap­plic­a­tion are also avail­able in web-based ver­sions, mean­ing that the ap­plic­a­tion and your notes reside not on your own com­puter but in the cloud. This pro­tects your data from in­ad­vert­ent loss or cor­rup­tion and can help you share in­form­a­tion and col­lab­or­ate with other re­search­ers.

但无论你使用什么技术,都必须考虑一些基本问题:

But whatever tech­no­logy you use, you have to con­sider some ba­sic ques­tions:

  • ▪ 你打算如何保持条理清晰?例如,如果你计划为每个资料来源创建一个单独的文档,那么你需要一个文件命名和存储系统。如果没有这样的系统,很容易在电脑或设备上“丢失”你的笔记。
  • ▪  How will you stay or­gan­ized? For ex­ample, if you plan to cre­ate a sep­ar­ate doc­u­ment for each source, you then need a sys­tem for nam­ing and stor­ing your files. Without such a sys­tem, it is very easy to “lose” your notes on your com­puter or device.
  • ▪ 你将如何使用你的笔记?你可能会决定针对小型项目和大型项目、离散项目和持续性项目、个人项目和协作项目采用不同的笔记存储方式。
  • ▪  How will you use your notes? You may de­cide to store your notes dif­fer­ently for small pro­jects and large ones, for dis­crete pro­jects and on­go­ing ones, for in­di­vidual pro­jects and col­lab­or­at­ive ones.
  • ▪ 你的学校或图书馆提供哪些应用程序?许多学校和图书馆都提供笔记软件或参考资料管理软件。这些系统面向教职员工、学生和用户,有时还会将这些工具与他们的目录集成在一起。如果您可以使用此类资源,请考虑使用它们。
  • ▪  What ap­plic­a­tions are avail­able through your school or lib­rary? Many schools and lib­rar­ies of­fer note-tak­ing or ref­er­ence-man­age­ment sys­tems to fac­ulty, stu­dents, and pat­rons, some­times in­teg­rat­ing these tools with their cata­logs. If you have ac­cess to such re­sources, con­sider us­ing them.
  • ▪ 您打算如何备份笔记?无论您选择如何记录和整理笔记,请确保在出现意外情况时能够恢复它们:例如,咖啡洒在笔记本电脑上、手机丢失、文件与新版笔记应用不兼容、地下室的老鼠啃坏了索引卡片盒等等。我们建议您将笔记存储在云端,或者至少备份到云端。备份软件可以自动完成这些操作。
  • ▪  How will you back up your notes? How­ever you de­cide to take and or­gan­ize your notes, make sure you can re­cover them if some­thing goes wrong: you spill cof­fee on your laptop, you lose your phone, your files are in­com­pat­ible with the new ver­sion of your note-tak­ing app, mice in your base­ment chew through your box of in­dex cards. Our sug­ges­tion is that you store your notes in, or at least back them up to, the cloud. Backup soft­ware can do this for you auto­mat­ic­ally.
  • 最重要的是:哪种方法最适合你自己的写作、思考和工作方式?随着你写作和研究能力的提升,你会逐渐形成一套独特的个人工作方法。其他人可能会觉得这些方法繁琐、令人困惑,甚至难以理解。但这都没关系。记住,你的目标不是创建一套详尽的笔记,而是高效、有条理地进行研究和写作。如果一款软件不能帮助你做到这一点,那么对你来说,它就毫无用处。
  • ▪  Most im­port­ant: What ap­proach best suits your own ways of writ­ing, think­ing, and work­ing? As you grow as a writer and re­searcher, you will de­velop ways of work­ing that are par­tic­u­lar to you. Oth­ers may find them cum­ber­some or con­fus­ing or even in­com­pre­hens­ible. No mat­ter. Re­mem­ber that your goal is not to cre­ate an elab­or­ate set of notes but to re­search and write cap­ably and in­tel­li­gently. If a piece of soft­ware doesn’t help you do that, it isn’t use­ful—to you.

4.6.3  决定引用、释义还是概括

4.6.3  De­cid­ing Whether to Quote, Para­phrase, or Sum­mar­ize

如果你能复印、扫描、下载或剪切粘贴资料来源,或者你知道写作时可以随时在线访问,那么你就可以把注意力从忠实还原原文转移到自己对资料的理解上。这是一个巨大的优势。总结资料来源,这也有助于你理解它,并记下你可能想要引用或转述的段落。同时,也要记录你对资料来源的回应。你发现自己在哪些方面赞同它的观点?哪些方面不赞同?你是否想说“是的,但是……”?

If you can pho­to­copy, scan, down­load, or cut-and-paste your source, or you know that you can ac­cess it on­line when you write, you can fo­cus less on pre­serving its ex­act words than on your own en­gage­ment with it. That’s a great ad­vant­age. Sum­mar­ize the source, which will also help you un­der­stand it, and note pas­sages you may want to quote or para­phrase when you write. Note also your own re­sponses to the source. Where did you find your­self agree­ing with it? Dis­agree­ing? Want­ing to say, Yes, but . . . ?

如果你无法保存完整的资料来源,也不确定以后是否还能访问,那么你将面临一个更艰难的选择:哪些部分需要完整记录(例如转录、剪切粘贴、截图或拍照),哪些部分需要概括或转述。在这种情况下,你必须考虑以后如何使用这些笔记。你的研究领域也会影响你的选择:人文学科的研究人员在写作时通常引用原文;社会科学家和自然科学家则通常采用转述和概括的方式(参见第12章)。

If you can’t pre­serve your en­tire source and don’t know whether you will be able to ac­cess it later, you have a tougher choice: what parts of the source to re­cord ex­actly (by tran­scrib­ing them, cut­ting-and-past­ing, tak­ing a screen­shot, or snap­ping a photo) and what parts to sum­mar­ize or para­phrase. In this situ­ation, you have to con­sider how you plan to use your notes later. Your field will af­fect your choices: When they write, re­search­ers in the hu­man­it­ies quote most of­ten; so­cial and nat­ural sci­ent­ists usu­ally para­phrase and sum­mar­ize (see chapter 12).

  • ▪ 当您只需要了解一段文字、一个章节甚至整篇文章或一本书的要点时,可以使用摘要。摘要有助于了解与研究项目相关但并非直接相关的背景信息或观点。但请注意,摘要本身并不能作为有效的证据。
  • ▪  Sum­mar­ize when you need only the point of a pas­sage, sec­tion, or even a whole art­icle or book. Sum­mary is use­ful for con­text or views that are re­lated but not spe­cific­ally rel­ev­ant to your re­search pro­ject. A sum­mary of a source never serves as good evid­ence.
  • ▪ 当一段文字的具体用词不如其含义重要时,可以使用释义。释义并非仅仅改变一两个词,而是要用自己的语言替换原文的大部分词语和措辞。释义的证据效力永远不如直接引用。
  • ▪  Para­phrase when the spe­cific words of a pas­sage are less im­port­ant than its mean­ing. Para­phras­ing doesn’t mean chan­ging just a word or two. You must re­place most of the words and phras­ing of the ori­ginal with your own. A para­phrase is never as good evid­ence as a dir­ect quo­ta­tion.
  • ▪ 为实现以下目的,请记录准确的报价:
  • ▪  Re­cord ex­act quo­ta­tions for these pur­poses:
  • ——引用的文字是支持你论点的证据。例如,如果你声称不同群体对重新命名以奴隶主命名的建筑物的反应不同,你就应该引用不同新闻来源的原文。如果你只需要了解他们的总体观点,则可以进行意译。
  • —The quoted words are evid­ence that backs up your reas­ons. If, for ex­ample, you claim that dif­fer­ent groups re­spond dif­fer­ently to re­nam­ing build­ings named for en­slavers, you would quote ex­act words from dif­fer­ent news sources. You would para­phrase them if you needed only their gen­eral sen­ti­ments.
  • —这些话出自你打算依赖或质疑的权威人士之口。
  • —The words are from an au­thor­ity you plan to rely on or chal­lenge.
  • —这些话非常新颖独特,或者极具说服力,以至于这段引文可以作为你接下来讨论的框架。
  • —The words are strik­ingly ori­ginal or so com­pel­ling that the quo­ta­tion can frame the rest of your dis­cus­sion.
  • —消息来源提出了你不同意的观点,为了公平起见,你想准确地陈述该观点。
  • —The source makes a claim that you dis­agree with, and to be fair you want to state that claim ex­actly.

千万不要为了方便而缩写引语,以为之后就能准确地还原原文。你做不到。而且,如果你引用错误,就会损害你的信誉。

Never ab­bre­vi­ate a quo­ta­tion think­ing you can ac­cur­ately re­con­struct it later. You can’t. And if you mis­quote, you will un­der­mine your cred­ib­il­ity.

4.6.4  正确把握语境

4.6.4  Get­ting the Con­text Right

你不可能记录所有内容,但必须记录足够的信息,以确保准确捕捉到资料的含义。在使用资料时,不仅要记录他们说了什么,还要记录他们是如何运用这些信息的。

You can’t re­cord everything, but you have to re­cord enough to en­sure that you ac­cur­ately cap­ture the source’s mean­ing. As you use ma­ter­ial from your sources, re­cord not just what they say but how they use the in­form­a­tion.

  1. 1.引用、转述或概括时,务必注意语境。你无法完全避免断章取义,因为你不可能引用原文的全部内容。因此,当你撰写转述、概括或复制引文时,务必将其置于最重要的语境中——即你对原文的理解。当你注意到重要的论点或结论,记录作者的推理过程:
    1. 注意:巴托利(第 123 页):战争是由 Z 引起的。
    2. 注意:巴托利(第 123 页):战争是由 X、Y 和 Z 引起的。
    3. 但是:巴托利:战争是由 X、Y 和 Z 引起的(第 123 页)。但最重要的原因是 Z(第 123 页),原因有二:首先,……(第 124-126 页);其次,……(第 126 页)。
    4. 即使你只关心结论,如果你记录下作者得出结论的过程,你也能更准确地使用它。
    5. 2.记录论点时,请注意它在原文中的作用。它是主要论点?次要论点?限定条件或让步?通过记录这些区别,您可以避免此类错误:
    6. 琼斯原文 研究人员认识到,肺癌的病因有很多,包括遗传倾向和接触石棉、氡、细颗粒物等环境因素。但研究过相关数据的人都一致认为,吸烟是肺癌的主要病因。”
    7. 关于 琼斯的误导性说明:吸烟只是导致肺癌的众多原因之一。例如,琼斯声称“肺癌的病因有很多,包括遗传倾向和接触石棉、氡和细颗粒物等环境因素。”
    8. 琼斯根本没有提出这一点。她只是先让步,引出她自己想要表达的观点。任何故意以这种方式歪曲事实的人都违反了基本的真相准则。但是,如果你只关注消息来源的措辞,而忽略了它们在论证中的作用,就可能无意中犯下这样的错误。
    9. 为避免此类错误,应区分论证的核心陈述与作者承认但淡化的限定或让步。除非你是在“反其道而行之”地解读作者的意图——例如,为了揭露其隐藏的倾向——否则不要将来源中的次要方面当作主要方面来报道,更不要将其当作来源的全部论点。
    10. 3.记录声明的范围和置信度。不要让声明看起来比实际情况更确定或影响范围更广。第二句话没有准确或公正地转述第一句话:
    11. 原文:一项关于风险感知的研究(Clark,2008)表明,高风险赌博与儿童脑震荡之间存在联系。
    12. 误导性说明 克拉克(2008 年)表示,儿童脑震荡会导致高风险赌博。
    13. 4.不要将对其他作者观点的总结误认为是作者自身的总结。有些作者并未明确指出他们何时在总结他人的论点,因此很容易将他们的观点理解为他们试图反驳的内容,而非他们实际的观点。
    14. 5.注意不同信息来源的共识与分歧所在。信息来源达成共识的 方式原因与它们达成共识本身同样重要。同样,信息来源也可能因为对同一证据的解读不同或解决问题的方法不同而产生分歧。盲目相信任何一位研究者对某个问题的观点都是有风险的。不加批判地总结他人的研究成果并非真正的“研究”。即使你的信息来源广受信赖,也要谨慎。如果你至少参考两个信息来源,通常会发现它们并非完全一致,而这正是你开展独立研究的起点。哪个论证更有说服力?哪个更尊重证据?事实上,这本身就是一个研究问题:我们应该相信谁?
  2. 1. When you quote, para­phrase, or sum­mar­ize, be care­ful about con­text. You can­not en­tirely avoid quot­ing out of con­text, be­cause you can­not quote all of an ori­ginal. So when you draft a para­phrase or sum­mary or copy a quo­ta­tion, do so within the con­text that mat­ters most—that of your own grasp of the ori­ginal. When you note an im­port­ant ar­gu­ment or con­clu­sion, re­cord the au­thor’s line of reas­on­ing:
    1. NOT: Bar­to­lli (p. 123): The war was caused by Z.
    2. NOT: Bar­to­lli (p. 123): The war was caused by X, Y, and Z.
    3. BUT: Bar­to­lli: The war was caused by X, Y, and Z (p. 123). But the most im­port­ant cause was Z (p. 123), for two reas­ons: first, . . . (pp. 124–26); second, . . . (p. 126).
    4. Even if you care only about a con­clu­sion, you will use it more ac­cur­ately if you re­cord how an au­thor reached it.
    5. 2. When you re­cord a claim, note its role in the ori­ginal. Is it a main point? A minor point? A qual­i­fic­a­tion or con­ces­sion? By not­ing these dis­tinc­tions, you avoid this kind of mis­take:
    6. ORI­GINAL BY JONES: “Re­search­ers re­cog­nize that lung can­cer has a num­ber of causes, in­clud­ing ge­netic pre­dis­pos­i­tion and ex­pos­ure to en­vir­on­mental factors such as as­bes­tos, radon, and fine par­tic­u­lates. But no one who has stud­ied the data doubts that lung can­cer’s lead­ing cause is smoking.”
    7. MIS­LEAD­ING NOTE ABOUT JONES: Smoking is just one cause of lung can­cer among many. Jones, for ex­ample, claims that “lung can­cer has a num­ber of causes, in­clud­ing ge­netic pre­dis­pos­i­tion and ex­pos­ure to en­vir­on­mental factors such as as­bes­tos, radon, and fine par­tic­u­lates.”
    8. Jones did not make that point at all. She con­ceded a point to set up the point she wanted to make. Any­one who de­lib­er­ately mis­re­ports in this way vi­ol­ates ba­sic stand­ards of truth. But you can make such a mis­take in­ad­vert­ently if you note only a source’s words and not their role in an ar­gu­ment.
    9. To avoid such mis­takes, dis­tin­guish state­ments that are cent­ral to an ar­gu­ment from qual­i­fic­a­tions or con­ces­sions that the au­thor ac­know­ledges but down­plays. Un­less you are read­ing “against the grain” of the writer’s in­ten­tion—to ex­pose hid­den tend­en­cies, for ex­ample—do not re­port minor as­pects of a source as though they were ma­jor or, worse, as if they were the source’s whole point.
    10. 3. Re­cord the scope and con­fid­ence of a claim. Don’t make a claim seem more cer­tain or far-reach­ing than it is. The second sen­tence doesn’t ac­cur­ately or fairly re­port the first:
    11. ORI­GINAL: One study on the per­cep­tion of risk (Clark, 2008) sug­gests a link between high-stakes gambling and child­hood con­cus­sions.
    12. MIS­LEAD­ING NOTE: Clark (2008) says child­hood con­cus­sions cause high-stakes gambling.
    13. 4. Don’t mis­take a sum­mary of an­other writer’s views for those of an au­thor sum­mar­iz­ing them. Some writers do not clearly in­dic­ate when they sum­mar­ize an­other’s ar­gu­ment, so it is easy to quote them as say­ing what they set out to dis­prove rather than what they in fact be­lieve.
    14. 5. Note why sources agree and dis­agree. How and why sources agree is as im­port­ant as the fact that they do. In the same way, sources might dis­agree be­cause they in­ter­pret the same evid­ence dif­fer­ently or take dif­fer­ent ap­proaches to the prob­lem. It is risky to at­tach your­self to what any one re­searcher says about an is­sue. It is not “re­search” when you un­crit­ic­ally sum­mar­ize an­other’s work. Even if your source is uni­ver­sally trus­ted, be care­ful. If you rely on at least two sources, you’ll usu­ally find that they do not agree en­tirely, and that is where your own re­search can be­gin. Which has the bet­ter ar­gu­ment? Which bet­ter re­spects the evid­ence? In fact, you have a re­search prob­lem right there: Whom should we be­lieve?

4.7  注释你的资料来源

4.7  An­not­at­ing Your Sources

有一些技巧可以帮助你通过注释系统地利用资料来源。虽然机械地下载、剪切粘贴、复印或重新输入资料段落可以帮助你准确地引用或转述,但如果你不与资料来源进行互动,你只会积累一些毫无生气的数据,最终不得不费力地筛选它们。为了推进你的思考,请对关键句子和段落进行注释,例如高亮显示或添加标签,以便日后查找。标记你预期在论证中使用的观点或数据。总结你标记的内容或绘制草图。你可以对它做出回应,或者在页边空白处添加注释,帮助你理解你高亮的部分。你现在对某个资料的描述越多,以后就越能更好地理解它。

There are some tech­niques for en­ga­ging your sources sys­tem­at­ic­ally through an­nota­tion. While mech­an­ic­ally re­cord­ing pas­sages from sources by down­load­ing, cut­ting-and-past­ing, pho­to­copy­ing, or re­typ­ing can help you quote or para­phrase ac­cur­ately, if you don’t talk back to your sources, you will simply ac­cu­mu­late in­ert data that you will have to sift through at some point. To ad­vance your think­ing, an­not­ate key sen­tences and pas­sages by high­light­ing or la­beling them so that you can find them later. Mark ideas or data that you ex­pect to use in your ar­gu­ment. Sum­mar­ize what you have high­lighted or sketch a re­sponse to it or add notes in the mar­gin that help you in­ter­pret your high­light­ing. The more you write about a source now, the bet­ter you will un­der­stand it later.

4.7.1  边注

4.7.1  Mar­ginal An­nota­tions

除了在纸上或电脑上做笔记之外,您还可以直接对许多纸质或电子版资料进行注释。注释是一种通过评论、提问和与其他资料的交叉引用来标记资料的技术。在文本资料的页边空白处进行注释通常比简单地高亮显示更有效,因为它能更清晰地展现资料与您项目的相关性。

As an al­tern­at­ive to tak­ing notes on pa­per or a com­puter, you can dir­ectly an­not­ate many sources in print or di­gital form. An­nota­tion is a tech­nique of mark­ing up a source through com­ments, ques­tions, and cross-ref­er­ences to other sources. An­not­at­ing in the mar­gins of tex­tual sources is gen­er­ally more pro­duct­ive than simply high­light­ing be­cause it brings into re­lief the rel­ev­ance of a source to your pro­ject.

在注释过程中,您可以记录本章讨论的积极阅读实践。您可以使用注释来识别资料的论点和关键词,或者通过质疑(或扩展)资料的理由、证据和论证来“论证”资料(参见第三部分)。随着项目的推进,您可以返回到已注释的资料,回顾您之前的思考。

In an­not­at­ing, you doc­u­ment the act­ive read­ing prac­tices dis­cussed in this chapter. You can use an­nota­tions to identify a source’s claims and keywords or “ar­gue” with a source by ques­tion­ing (or ex­tend­ing) its reas­ons, evid­ence, and war­rants (see part III). As your pro­ject de­vel­ops, you can re­turn to an an­not­ated source to see what you were think­ing earlier.

当然,并非所有资源都同样适合注释。你不能在图书馆书籍或其他非自有文本的页边空白处做笔记。许多文本只能(或最方便地)以数字形式获取。不过幸运的是,有一些数字注释工具可以让你在数字环境中记录阅读内容。你可以使用这些工具注释各种资源,包括文本、图像等。录音、视频,并将您的回复与各种来源关联起来,创建一个可搜索的数据库,以便日后参考。

Of course, not every source is equally avail­able for an­nota­tion. You can’t write in the mar­gins of lib­rary books or other texts you do not own. Many texts are ac­cess­ible only (or most con­veni­ently) in di­gital form. For­tu­nately, how­ever, there are di­gital an­nota­tion tools that let you doc­u­ment your read­ing in di­gital en­vir­on­ments. You can use these tools to an­not­ate a wide range of sources, in­clud­ing texts, im­ages, re­cord­ings, and video, and to link your re­sponses to vari­ous sources to cre­ate a search­able data­base for later ref­er­ence.

4.7.2  注释书目

4.7.2  An­not­ated Bib­li­o­graphy

一种利用文献资料的方法是制作带注释的书目——一份列出所有可能文献的清单,每条文献都附有引文和简要概述。(关于引文的更多信息,请参见第12章。)根据创建注释的目的,注释可以分为多种类型。对于研究项目而言,带注释的书目能够提供一系列文献及其在论证中可能发挥的作用的概览。通常,编写带注释的书目是研究过程中的一个独立阶段,它使您(以及您的老师)有机会反思所收集的文献。每条注释都是一次评估文献可信度、总结其论点并解释其与项目相关性的机会。

One ap­proach to en­ga­ging sources is an an­not­ated bib­li­o­graphy—a list of pos­sible sources fea­tur­ing a cita­tion and brief sum­mary for each source. (For more on cita­tions, see chapter 12.) There are mul­tiple types of an­nota­tions based on the motive for cre­at­ing them. For a re­search pro­ject, an an­not­ated bib­li­o­graphy of­fers a bird’s-eye view of a range of sources and the roles they might play in your ar­gu­ment. Of­ten the as­sem­bling of an an­not­ated bib­li­o­graphy is a dis­tinct stage in a re­search pro­cess, one that al­lows you (and your teacher) to re­flect on the sources you have col­lec­ted. Each an­nota­tion is an op­por­tun­ity to eval­u­ate the cred­ib­il­ity of a source, sum­mar­ize its ar­gu­ment, and ex­plain its rel­ev­ance to your pro­ject.

编制带注释的书目可以帮助你评估你的研究是否彻底,以及你对收集到的资料的运用是否深入。

Com­pil­ing an an­not­ated bib­li­o­graphy can help you gauge how thor­oughly you have con­duc­ted your re­search and how deeply you have en­gaged the sources you have col­lec­ted.

4.7.3  用于对笔记进行分类和整理的关键词

4.7.3  Keywords That Cat­egor­ize Your Notes for Sort­ing

最后,一项概念性挑战:在做笔记时,请将每条笔记归类到两个或多个关键词下(参见第 85 页笔记卡的右上角)。不要机械地使用原文中的词语;要根据笔记对你问题的启示,以及超越其具体内容的更宏观的概念来对其进行分类。对相关的笔记使用相同的标签或关键词;不要为每条新笔记都创建一个新的标签或关键词。

Fi­nally, a con­cep­tu­ally chal­len­ging task: as you take notes, cat­egor­ize each one un­der two or more keywords (see the up­per-right corner of the note card on p. 85). Don’t mech­an­ic­ally use words from the source; cat­egor­ize the note by what it im­plies for your ques­tion, by a gen­eral idea lar­ger than its spe­cific con­tent. Use the same tags or keywords for re­lated notes; don’t cre­ate a new one for every new note.

这一步至关重要,因为它能迫使你找出笔记的核心思想。如果你用电子设备做笔记,关键词可以让你通过一次查找命令就将相关的笔记归类。如果你使用多个关键词,就可以用不同的方式重新组合笔记,从而发现新的关联(这在你感觉思路混乱时尤为重要)。

This step is cru­cial be­cause it forces you to find the cent­ral ideas in a note. If you take notes elec­tron­ic­ally, the keywords let you in­stantly group re­lated notes with a single Find com­mand. If you use more than one keyword, you can re­com­bine your notes in dif­fer­ent ways to dis­cover new re­la­tion­ships (es­pe­cially im­port­ant when you feel you are spin­ning your wheels).

▶ 小贴士:如何应对不确定时刻

▶ Quick Tip: Man­aging Mo­ments of Un­cer­tainty

随着项目深入,你可能会遇到这样的时刻:所有事情似乎都混成一团,让人束手无策。这种情况通常发生在你积累笔记的速度超过了整理的速度时。这样的时刻固然令人焦虑,但也可能预示着你即将获得新的洞见或发现。

As you get deeper into your pro­ject, you may ex­per­i­ence a mo­ment when everything seems to run to­gether into a hope­less muddle. That usu­ally hap­pens when you ac­cu­mu­late notes faster than you can sort them. Such mo­ments can be stress­ful, but they can also be a sign that you are on the verge of a new in­sight or dis­cov­ery.

你可以抓住一切机会整理和总结你收集到的信息,边做边写,并不断回到核心问题上,从而最大限度地减少焦虑:我提出的问题是什么?我提出的难题是什么?反复练习这个公式:我正在研究 X,以了解更多关于 Y 的信息,这样我的读者就能更好地理解 Z。定期记录这些问题不仅能帮助你保持专注,还能帮助你思考。

You can min­im­ize anxi­ety by tak­ing every op­por­tun­ity to or­gan­ize and sum­mar­ize what you have gathered by writ­ing as you go and by re­turn­ing to the cent­ral ques­tions: What ques­tion am I ask­ing? What prob­lem am I pos­ing? Keep re­hears­ing that for­mula, I am work­ing on X to learn more about Y, so that my audi­ence can bet­ter un­der­stand Z. Writ­ing reg­u­larly about these ques­tions does more than help you stay fo­cused; it also helps you think.

你还可以向朋友、同学、老师——任何愿意倾听你想法但又能提出批评意见的人——寻求帮助。解释你所学到的知识如何与你的问题相关,以及如何帮助你解决问题。问问他们:“这样说得通吗?我是否遗漏了什么重要的信息?你们还想知道什么?”他们的反馈会让你受益匪浅,但更重要的是,向非专业人士解释你的想法本身就会让你受益匪浅。

You can also turn to friends, class­mates, teach­ers—any­one who will serve as a sym­path­etic but crit­ical audi­ence. Ex­plain how what you have learned bears on your ques­tion and helps you solve your prob­lem. Ask them, Does this make sense? Am I miss­ing any­thing im­port­ant? What else would you like to know? You will profit from their re­ac­tions, but even more from the mere act of ex­plain­ing your ideas to non-spe­cial­ists.

第三部分

Part III

提出你的论点

Mak­ing Your Ar­gu­ment

序幕

Pro­logue

构建研究论点

Assembling a Research Argument

你不能等到收集齐所有数据、找到所有相关资料后才开始规划论证。首先,你永远不可能全部收集到。其次,你最终只会机械地、漫无目的地研究,积累越来越多的资料却不知其用,或者像无头苍蝇一样四处乱窜。当然,你需要做一些研究来掌握项目的脉络。但一旦你对问题及其可能的解决方案有了清晰的认识,就应该开始规划论证。随着研究的深入,你的计划也会随之改变——如果计划一成不变,说明你可能没有进行充分的思考——但尽早制定计划并根据研究进展不断调整,能帮助你更好地理解材料,更有针对性地进行研究。只有当你尝试构建一个能够回答听众预期问题的论证时,你才能发现自己还有哪些研究工作尚未完成。

You can’t wait to plan your ar­gu­ment un­til after you’ve gathered every last bit of data and found every last rel­ev­ant source. In the first place, you’ll never get them all. In the second, you’ll end up re­search­ing mech­an­ic­ally or aim­lessly, ac­cu­mu­lat­ing more and more stuff with no sense of what you’ll do with it or fol­low­ing trails of bread crumbs who knows where. Of course, you have to do some re­search to get a handle on your pro­ject. But as soon as you have a sense of your prob­lem and its likely solu­tion, you should be­gin plan­ning your ar­gu­ment. Your plan will change as your re­search pro­gresses—if it doesn’t, you prob­ably aren’t do­ing your best think­ing—but mak­ing a plan early and modi­fy­ing it as you go will help you grasp your ma­ter­ial bet­ter and re­search more pur­pose­fully. Only when you try to make a re­search ar­gu­ment that an­swers your audi­ence’s pre­dict­able ques­tions can you see what re­search you have yet to do.

学术争论与我们日常生活中听到的激烈争吵截然不同。那些争论通常涉及纠纷:孩子们为了一个玩具争吵,室友们争论灯开到多晚,司机们争论谁有优先通行权。这类争论可能礼貌,也可能粗鲁,但大多数都包含冲突,有输有赢。诚然,研究人员有时也会就彼此的推理和证据争论不休,偶尔还会指责对方粗心、无能,甚至欺诈。但正是这类争论,并非他们最初选择成为研究人员的原因。

A re­search ar­gu­ment is not like the heated ex­changes we hear every day. Those ar­gu­ments usu­ally in­volve a dis­pute: chil­dren ar­gue over a toy, room­mates over how late to keep the lights on, drivers over who had the right-of-way. Such ar­gu­ments can be po­lite or nasty, but most in­volve con­flict, with win­ners and losers. To be sure, re­search­ers some­times wrangle over each other’s reas­on­ing and evid­ence and oc­ca­sion­ally erupt into charges of care­less­ness, in­com­pet­ence, and even fraud. But that kind of ar­gu­ment is not what made them re­search­ers in the first place.

接下来的五章,我们将探讨一种论证方式,它不像是一场充满争执、分出胜负的辩论,而更像是与友善且有时略带怀疑的同事们进行的一场生动对话。在这种对话中,你和你的假想听众共同寻求问题的答案:其目标并非一方强迫另一方同意,而是让每个人都能增进理解和知识。从这个意义上讲,最佳答案往往不是那些终结对话的答案,而是那些能够引发新问题、新探究和新论点的答案。

In the next five chapters, we ex­am­ine a kind of ar­gu­ment that is less like a prickly dis­pute with win­ners and losers and more like a lively con­ver­sa­tion with ami­able and some­times skep­tical col­leagues. It is a con­ver­sa­tion in which you and your ima­gined audi­ence co­oper­at­ively seek an­swers to shared ques­tions: the goal is not for one side to co­erce the other into agree­ment but for every­one to grow in un­der­stand­ing and know­ledge. In this sense, the best an­swers are of­ten not those that end the con­ver­sa­tion but those that gen­er­ate new ques­tions, in­quiry, and ar­gu­ments.

然而,在那种对话中,你们做的远不止是礼貌地交换意见。我们都有权发表自己的意见,也没有任何法律要求我们解释或捍卫自己的意见。但在学术论证中,我们需要向读者展示我们论点的重要性,然后用充分的理由和证据来支持我们的论点,并回答“我为什么要相信这一点?”这个相当合理的问题。

In that con­ver­sa­tion, though, you do more than po­litely trade opin­ions. We are all en­titled to our opin­ions, and no law re­quires us to ex­plain or de­fend them. But in a re­search ar­gu­ment, we are ex­pec­ted to show an audi­ence why our claims are im­port­ant and then to sup­port our claims with good reas­ons and evid­ence, re­spond­ing to the quite reas­on­able ques­tion Why should I be­lieve that?

事实上,虽然我们更容易注意到激烈的争论,但我们每天都在进行这种合作式的讨论,每次我们交换合理的理由来决定做什么时——比如和朋友讨论买哪款手机、读哪本书,甚至是点披萨还是泰国菜。就像这些友好的讨论一样,研究论证并不强迫任何人接受某种观点。相反,你要从你的受众出发,从他们预期的疑问开始,询问他们为什么要接受你的观点。他们提出这些问题并非为了破坏你的论证,而是为了检验它,帮助你们双方找到并理解一个值得分享的真理。当然,当你撰写论证时,没有人会当面问你这些问题。所以你必须站在受众的角度去设想这些问题。正是这些设想的问题和你的答案,使你的论证成为持续对话的一部分。在第五章中,我们将概述构成研究论证的要素。在第六章到第九章中,我们将详细解释每个要素。在第四部分,我们将向你展示如何将论证转化为书面或演示文稿。

In fact, al­though we more eas­ily no­tice the heated dis­putes, we have these col­lab­or­at­ive ar­gu­ments every day, each time we trade good reas­ons for de­cid­ing what to do—when dis­cuss­ing with a friend what cell phone to buy, what books to read, even whether to or­der pizza or Thai food. Like those friendly dis­cus­sions, a re­search ar­gu­ment doesn’t force a claim on any­one. In­stead, you start where your audi­ence does, with their pre­dict­able ques­tions about why they should ac­cept your claim, ques­tions they ask not to sab­ot­age your ar­gu­ment but to test it, to help both of you find and un­der­stand a truth worth shar­ing. Of course, when you write an ar­gu­ment, no one is there to ask you those ques­tions in per­son. So you must ima­gine them on your audi­ence’s be­half. It’s those ima­gined ques­tions and your an­swers that make your ar­gu­ment part of an on­go­ing con­ver­sa­tion. In chapter 5, we sur­vey the ele­ments that con­sti­tute a re­search ar­gu­ment. In chapters 6–9, we ex­plain each ele­ment in de­tail. In part IV, we’ll show you how to put that ar­gu­ment into writ­ing or a present­a­tion.

5. 如何提出有力的论点

5  Mak­ing Good Ar­gu­ments

概述

An Overview

本章我们将解释什么是研究论证,以及构成研究论证的五个问题的答案。

In this chapter, we ex­plain what a re­search ar­gu­ment is and the five ques­tions whose an­swers con­sti­tute one.

第一部分中,我们解释了真正的研究不仅仅是收集关于某个主题的信息;它意味着要针对你和你的受众所关心的问题提出解决方案。同样,分享你的研究成果也不仅仅是向受众“倾倒数据”,说“以下是关于我的主题的一些事实” ;它意味着要解释你的问题,并在研究论证中论证你的解决方案。

In part I, we ex­plained that au­then­tic re­search in­volves more than just amass­ing in­form­a­tion on a topic; it means de­vel­op­ing solu­tions to prob­lems you and your audi­ence care about. Like­wise, shar­ing the res­ults of your re­search in­volves more than just giv­ing your audi­ence a “data dump” that says, Here are some facts about my topic; it means ex­plain­ing your prob­lem and jus­ti­fy­ing your solu­tion in a re­search ar­gu­ment.

5.1  论证即对话

5.1  Ar­gu­ment as Con­ver­sa­tion

在研究论证中,你需要提出论点,用基于证据的理由支持它承认并回应其他观点,有时还需要解释你的推理原则。这些并不神秘。想想你每天都会进行的对话:

In a re­search ar­gu­ment, you make a claim, sup­port it with reas­ons based on evid­ence, ac­know­ledge and re­spond to other views, and some­times ex­plain your prin­ciples of reas­on­ing. There’s noth­ing ar­cane about these things. Con­sider the kind of con­ver­sa­tion you have every day:

艾比:我听说你上学期过得很艰难。你觉得这学期会怎么样?(艾比以提问的形式提出了一个问题。

Abby: I hear you had a hard time last semester. How do you think this one will go? [Abby poses a prob­lem in the form of a ques­tion.]

布雷特:希望好些了。[布雷特回答了问题。 ]

Brett: Bet­ter, I hope. [Brett an­swers the ques­tion.]

艾比:怎么说?(艾比要求布雷特给出相信他回答的理由。

Abby: How so? [Abby asks for a reason to be­lieve Brett’s an­swer.]

布雷特:我正在修读专业课。[布雷特解释了原因。 ]

Brett: I’m tak­ing courses in my ma­jor. [Brett of­fers a reason.]

艾比:比如什么?(艾比要求布雷特拿出证据来支持他的说法。

Abby: Like what? [Abby asks for evid­ence to back up Brett’s reason.]

布雷特:艺术史,设计导论。[布雷特提供了证据来支持他的观点。 ]

Brett: His­tory of Art, In­tro to Design. [Brett of­fers evid­ence to back up his reason.]

艾比:为什么修读专业课会有帮助?(艾比认为布雷特的理由与他声称自己会做得更好毫无关联。

Abby: Why will tak­ing courses in your ma­jor make a dif­fer­ence? [Abby doesn’t see the rel­ev­ance of Brett’s reason to his claim that he will do bet­ter.]

布雷特:当我选修自己感兴趣的课程时,我会更加努力。[布雷特提出了一个普遍原则,将他的理由与他会做得更好的说法联系起来。 ]

Brett: When I take courses I’m in­ter­ested in, I work harder. [Brett of­fers a gen­eral prin­ciple that relates his reason to his claim that he will do bet­ter.]

艾比:那你还得修那门数学课呢?(艾比不同意布雷特的理由。

Abby: What about that math course you have to take? [Abby ob­jects to Brett’s reason.]

布雷特:我知道上次我选这门课的时候不得不放弃,但我现在有个很好的家教。[布雷特承认艾比的反对意见并作出了回应。 ]

Brett: I know I had to drop it last time I took it, but now I have a good tu­tor. [Brett ac­know­ledges Abby’s ob­jec­tion and re­sponds to it.]

如果你能设身处地地想象自己置身于那场对话中,你就会发现构建研究论证并不奇怪。这是因为任何论证的五个要素,实际上都是对艾比向布雷特提出的那些问题的回答——而这些问题,你也必须代表你的听众向自己提出:

If you can ima­gine your­self in that con­ver­sa­tion, you’ll find noth­ing strange about as­sem­bling a re­search ar­gu­ment. That’s be­cause the five ele­ments of any ar­gu­ment are just an­swers to the kinds of ques­tions that Abby asks Brett—and that you must ask your­self on your audi­ence’s be­half:

  1. 1.论点: 你想让我相信什么?你的观点是什么?
  2. 1. Claim: What do you want me to be­lieve? What’s your point?
  3. 2.理由: 你为什么这么说?我为什么要同意?
  4. 2. Reas­ons: Why do you say that? Why should I agree?
  5. 3.证据: 你怎么知道?你能证明吗?
  6. 3. Evid­ence: How do you know? Can you back it up?
  7. 4.论证: 这是如何得出的结论?你能解释一下你的理由吗?
  8. 4. War­rant: How does that fol­low? Can you ex­plain your reas­on­ing?
  9. 5.确认与回应: 但是……呢?
  10. 5. Ac­know­ledg­ment and Re­sponse: But what about . . . ?

把你的研究看作是找出这些问题答案的过程。

Think of your re­search as the pro­cess of fig­ur­ing out an­swers to these ques­tions.

5.2  构建论证的核心

5.2  As­sem­bling the Core of Your Ar­gu­ment

每个研究论证的核心都包含三个要素:你的论点、你接受该论点的理由,以及支撑这些理由的证据。在此基础上,你可能需要添加一到两个要素:一是需要你证明自身推理合理性的论证(参见第八章),二是承认并回应提出的问题、反对意见和不同观点(参见第九章)。你可以将这些要素想象成对听众可能提出的常见问题的解答。

At the core of every re­search ar­gu­ment are three ele­ments: your claim, your reas­ons for ac­cept­ing it, and the evid­ence on which those reas­ons are based. To that core you’ll add one and per­haps two more ele­ments: war­rants where you need to jus­tify your reas­on­ing (see chapter 8) and ac­know­ledg­ments of and re­sponses to ques­tions, ob­jec­tions, and al­tern­at­ive points of view (see chapter 9). Ima­gine these ele­ments as an­swers to the pre­dict­able ques­tions an audi­ence will ask.

5.2.1  用理由支持主张

5.2.1  Sup­port Claims with Reas­ons

第一种论据,即理由,是指引导听众接受你的观点的陈述。我们通常会在理由前加上“因为”

The first kind of sup­port, a reason, is a state­ment that leads an audi­ence to ac­cept your claim. We of­ten join a reason to a claim with be­cause:

小学应该把多语言教学作为优先事项因为我们在年幼时学习语言的效果

Ele­ment­ary schools should make teach­ing mul­tiple lan­guages a pri­or­ityclaim be­cause we ac­quire lan­guages best and most eas­ily when we are young.reason

通常你需要不止一个理由来支持你的论点,而在复杂的论证中,你的理由通常还需要更多理由的支持:

You of­ten need more than one reason to sup­port a claim, and in a com­plex ar­gu­ment, your reas­ons will usu­ally re­quire sup­port from still more reas­ons:

小学应将多语言教学作为优先事项(论点1) ,因为我们在年幼时最容易、最好地习得语言。 (理由1支持论点1/论点2)事实上,成年后才开始学习新语言的人,很少能达到从小学习语言的人的流利程度。 (理由2支持理由1和论点2/论点3)小学阶段教授多语言也有助于儿童的道德发展(理由3支持论点1/论点4),因为它能培养他们对自身文化和社会之外的其他文化和社会的认识。(理由4支持理由3和论点4/论点5)

Ele­ment­ary schools should make teach­ing mul­tiple lan­guages a pri­or­ityclaim 1 be­cause we ac­quire lan­guages best and most eas­ily when we are young.reason 1 sup­port­ing claim 1/claim 2 In fact, those who be­gin new lan­guages as adults rarely at­tain the level of flu­ency of those who learn them as chil­dren.reason 2 sup­port­ing reason 1 and claim 2/claim 3 Teach­ing mul­tiple lan­guages at the ele­ment­ary school level also con­trib­utes to chil­dren’s eth­ical de­vel­op­mentreason 3 sup­port­ing claim 1/claim 4 be­cause it fosters an aware­ness of cul­tures and so­ci­et­ies bey­ond their own.reason 4 sup­port­ing reason 3 and claim 4/claim 5

5.2.2  基于证据的理由

5.2.2  Base Reas­ons on Evid­ence

第二种支撑是支撑你论点的证据。我们说过,论点往往需要其他论点的支持,但这种支持链不会无限延伸。最终,你必须拿出一些具体的数据或信息。这就是你的证据。论点和证据这两个词有时似乎可以互换使用:

The second kind of sup­port is the evid­ence on which you base your reas­ons. We’ve said that reas­ons of­ten re­quire sup­port from ad­di­tional reas­ons, but these chains don’t go on forever. Even­tu­ally you have to show some con­crete data or in­form­a­tion. That’s your evid­ence. The terms reas­ons and evid­ence some­times seem in­ter­change­able:

你提出这一说法的依据是什么?

你的说法基于什么证据?

On what reas­ons do you base your claim?

On what evid­ence do you base your claim?

但它们的意思不同。请比较以下两个句子:

But they mean dif­fer­ent things. Com­pare these two sen­tences:

你的理由基于什么证据?

你的证据依据是什么?

On what evid­ence do you base your reas­ons?

On what reas­ons do you base your evid­ence?

第二句话很奇怪:我们不以理由为依据来论证,而是以证据为依据来论证。我们构思理由:这些理由是用来支持我们论点的陈述。我们必须在现实世界中寻找证据,然后让所有人都能看到。证据证据是指我们用来支撑论点的各种信息或数据——统计数据、例子、引文、图片、模型等等。论点需要证据的支持;而证据本身则无需其他支持,只需严谨的论证或可靠来源的引用即可。

That second sen­tence is odd: we don’t base evid­ence on reas­ons; we base reas­ons on evid­ence. We think up reas­ons: they are state­ments that sup­port our claims. We have to search for evid­ence “out there” in the world and then make it avail­able for every­one to see. Evid­ence is the in­form­a­tion or data—stat­ist­ics, ex­amples, quo­ta­tions, im­ages, mod­els, and so on—that we use to back up our reas­ons. Reas­ons need the sup­port of evid­ence; evid­ence should need no sup­port bey­ond care­ful demon­stra­tion or a ref­er­ence to a re­li­able source.

在日常对话中,我们通常只用理由来支持自己的观点:

In cas­ual con­ver­sa­tion, we usu­ally sup­port a claim with just a reason:

我们应该走了。理由:看起来要下雨了。

We should leave.claim It looks like rain.reason

很少有人会问:“你有什么证据证明看起来像下雨了?”但在研究论证中,你也必须提供证据,因为谨慎的听众不会轻易接受表面原因:

Few ask, What’s your evid­ence that it looks like rain? But in a re­search ar­gu­ment you also have to give evid­ence be­cause a care­ful audi­ence won’t ac­cept reas­ons at face value:

小学应该将多语言教学作为优先事项(论点1) ,因为我们在年幼时学习语言的效果最好、最容易。 (理由1支持论点1/论点2)事实上,成年后才开始学习新语言的人,很少能达到从小学习新语言的人的流利程度。 (理由2支持理由1/论点3 )琼斯(2013)在一项针对一百多名语言学习者的研究中发现,新语言熟练程度与……呈负相关(见表1)。(证据支持理由2)

Ele­ment­ary schools should make teach­ing mul­tiple lan­guages a pri­or­ityclaim 1 be­cause we ac­quire lan­guages best and most eas­ily when we are young.reason 1 sup­port­ing claim 1/claim 2 In fact, those who be­gin new lan­guages as adults rarely at­tain the level of flu­ency of those who learn them as chil­dren.reason 2 sup­port­ing reason 1/claim 3 In a study of over one hun­dred lan­guage learners, Jones (2013) iden­ti­fied an in­verse cor­rel­a­tion between new-lan­guage pro­fi­ciency and . . . (see table 1).evid­ence sup­port­ing reason 2

有了理由和证据,我们就拥有了研究论证的核心:

With reas­ons and evid­ence, we have the core of a re­search ar­gu­ment:

一个三部分组成的图示形象地描绘了研究论证的核心:提出一个主张是因为有一个理由,而这个理由又是基于证据的。

但在大多数情况下,仅凭这一核心内容是不够的:你还需要通过(有时)提供论据来充实你的研究论点,以表明某个理由与某个主张的相关性,并通过承认和回应其他观点来充实你的研究论点。

But in most cases, this core alone isn’t enough: you also have to flesh out your re­search ar­gu­ment by (some­times) of­fer­ing war­rants that show how a reason is rel­ev­ant to a claim and by ac­know­ledging and re­spond­ing to other points of view.

5.3  解释你的论证理由

5.3  Ex­plain­ing Your Reas­on­ing with War­rants

即使你的听众认同某个理由是正确的,如果他们看不出这个理由你的论点有何关联,他们仍然可能会感到困惑甚至反对。请思考以下论点:

Even when your audi­ence agrees that a reason is true, they may still be puzzled or even ob­ject if they can­not see its rel­ev­ance to your claim. Con­sider this ar­gu­ment:

由于近期国债收益率曲线出现倒挂,经济衰退似乎很有可能发生

Since the yield curve in Treas­ury bonds re­cently in­ver­ted,reason a re­ces­sion seems likely.claim

对金融和投资不熟悉的人可能会疑惑:为什么收益率曲线倒挂会导致经济衰退?我看不出这两者之间有什么联系。要回答这个问题,你必须解释你的推理过程,并提出一个能将你的具体理由与你的具体论断联系起来的普遍原则:

Someone un­fa­mil­iar with fin­ance and in­vest­ing might won­der, Why does that in­ver­ted yield curve make a re­ces­sion likely? I don’t see the con­nec­tion. To an­swer, you must ex­plain your reas­on­ing by of­fer­ing a gen­eral prin­ciple that con­nects your par­tic­u­lar reason to your par­tic­u­lar claim:

嗯,至少从20世纪中叶开始,国债收益率曲线倒挂就一直能可靠地预测即将到来的经济衰退

Well, since at least the mid-twen­ti­eth cen­tury, an in­ver­sion in the yield curve for Treas­ury bonds has re­li­ably pre­dicted com­ing re­ces­sions.war­rant

这项论证表达了从经验中得出的原则,即收益率曲线倒挂预示着未来经济形势严峻。如同所有论证一样,它确立了(如果为真)我们可以从某种普遍情况(收益率曲线倒挂)推断出某种普遍后果(经济衰退的可能性)。如果一项主张是该普遍后果的恰当例证,而其理由又是该普遍情况的恰当例证,那么该论证便成立。

This war­rant ex­presses the prin­ciple, learned from ex­per­i­ence, that in­ver­ted yield curves are a sign of rough eco­nomic times ahead. Like all war­rants, it es­tab­lishes (if true) that we can in­fer some gen­eral con­sequence (like­li­hood of a re­ces­sion) from some gen­eral cir­cum­stance (an in­ver­ted yield curve). If a claim is a good in­stance of that gen­eral con­sequence, and its reason is a good in­stance of that gen­eral cir­cum­stance, then the ar­gu­ment fol­lows.

图示说明了在研究论证中,论据与主张、理由和证据之间的关系。图示表明,主张的提出基于理由,而理由则建立在证据之上。论据通过连接要素与主张和理由连接起来,其定义为“使我能够将理由与主张联系起来的原则”。

正如我们将在第八章中看到的,何时需要提供论证并非易事。经验丰富的研究人员通常只在两种情况下提出论证:一是当他们认为本领域的读者可能会质疑某个理由与论点之间的关联性时;二是当他们向普通读者解释本领域的推理方式时。

As we’ll see in chapter 8, it’s not easy to de­cide when you even need a war­rant. Ex­per­i­enced re­search­ers usu­ally state them on only two oc­ca­sions: when they think an audi­ence in their field might ask how a reason is rel­ev­ant to a claim or when they are ex­plain­ing their fields’ ways of reas­on­ing to a gen­eral audi­ence.

5.4  识别并回应预期的问题和异议

5.4  Ac­know­ledging and Re­spond­ing to An­ti­cip­ated Ques­tions and Ob­jec­tions

细心的听众会质疑你论点的每一个细节,所以你必须尽可能地预判他们的问题,然后回应其中最重要的几个。例如,当听众思考“学校应该优先教授语言”这一观点时,他们可能会担心这样做是否会影响其他学科的教学。如果你认为他们可能会问这个问题,那么明智的做法是承认并回应它。

Care­ful audi­ences will ques­tion every part of your ar­gu­ment, so you must an­ti­cip­ate as many of their ques­tions as you can and then ac­know­ledge and re­spond to the most im­port­ant ones. For ex­ample, when an audi­ence con­siders the claim that schools should make lan­guage in­struc­tion a pri­or­ity, they may won­der if do­ing that might de­tract from the teach­ing of other sub­jects. If you think they might ask that ques­tion, you would be wise to ac­know­ledge and re­spond to it:

小学应该将多语言教学作为优先事项(论点1) ,因为我们在年幼时学习语言的效果最好、最容易。 (理由1支持论点1/论点2)  ……当然,如果学校增加对语言教学的重视程度,其他学科的教学质量可能会下降。 (承认)但几乎没有证据支持这种担忧,而且有大量证据可以消除这种担忧。……回应

Ele­ment­ary schools should make teach­ing mul­tiple lan­guages a pri­or­ityclaim 1 be­cause we ac­quire lan­guages best and most eas­ily when we are young.reason 1 sup­port­ing claim 1/claim 2 . . . Of course, if schools in­crease the at­ten­tion they give to lan­guages, qual­ity of in­struc­tion in other sub­jects might de­cline.ac­know­ledg­ment But little evid­ence ex­ists to sup­port that fear and much dis­pels it. . . .re­sponse

任何研究论证都离不开致谢和回应,因此我们将它们添加到图表中,以显示它们与论证所有其他部分的关系:

No re­search ar­gu­ment is com­plete without ac­know­ledg­ments and re­sponses, so we add them to our dia­gram to show how they re­late to all the other parts of an ar­gu­ment:

图示说明了在研究论证中,对预期问题和异议的承认和回应如何与论点、理由、证据和论证依据相关联。图示表明,论点的提出基于理由,而理由又基于证据。论证依据被描述并定义为“使我的理由和论点得以联系的原则”。研究者承认并回应了关于论证其他部分的预期问题和异议。

5.5  规划你的研究论点

5.5  Plan­ning Your Re­search Ar­gu­ment

研究论证与日常论证一样,都包含五个要素:主张、理由、证据、论证依据以及对其他观点的承认和回应。只是研究论证更为复杂。除了主要主张之外,研究论证可能包含若干次要主张。而每个次要主张都可能得到其他理由和证据的支持,并可能由一个或多个论证依据来证明其合理性。研究论证几乎肯定会承认并回应预期的问题、替代方案和反对意见,而对每一种回应都需要单独的论证。

Re­search ar­gu­ments are com­posed of the same five ele­ments as every­day ar­gu­ments: claims, reas­ons, evid­ence, war­rants, and ac­know­ledg­ments of and re­sponses to other views. They are just more com­plex. In ad­di­tion to its main claim, a re­search ar­gu­ment may in­clude a num­ber of sub­or­din­ate claims. And each of these claims is likely to be sup­por­ted by ad­di­tional reas­ons and evid­ence and per­haps jus­ti­fied by one or more war­rants. It will al­most cer­tainly ac­know­ledge and re­spond to an­ti­cip­ated ques­tions, al­tern­at­ives, and ob­jec­tions, with each of these re­sponses de­mand­ing its own ar­gu­ment.

最后,大多数研究论证都包含背景、定义、对受众可能不理解的问题的解释等等。例如,如果你要向一群不熟悉经济理论的听众阐述通货膨胀和货币供应之间的关系,你就必须解释经济学家是如何理解这些概念的。严谨的论证结构复杂,但只要将其分解成更简单的部分,就能驾驭自如。

Fi­nally, most re­search ar­gu­ments in­clude back­ground, defin­i­tions, ex­plan­a­tions of is­sues that an audi­ence might not un­der­stand, and so on. If, for ex­ample, you were mak­ing an ar­gu­ment about the re­la­tion­ship between in­fla­tion and money sup­ply to an audi­ence un­fa­mil­iar with eco­nomic the­ory, you would have to ex­plain how eco­nom­ists un­der­stand those con­cepts. Ser­i­ous ar­gu­ments are com­plex con­struc­tions, but you can man­age them if you break them down into sim­pler ones.

为了规划你的论证,你可以制作传统的提纲,也可以用其他方式将论证可视化。我们推荐使用类似图表的提纲或视觉组织工具,称为故事板。故事板就像一个被拆分成多个部分并分布在多页上的提纲,留有大量空间供你随时添加数据和想法。故事板比提纲更灵活。你可以使用应用程序或在线工具创建故事板,也可以像我们一样,使用索引卡片、便签或纸张。要开始制作故事板,请在每张卡片或页面的顶部写下你的主要论点以及每个理由(和子理由)。然后在每个理由(或子理由)下方,列出支持它的证据。如果你还没有证据,请记你需要哪些类型的证据。如果你预计需要解释你的理由如何支持其论点,请添加一页来阐述其论证依据。你还可以添加页面来承认其他观点并做出回应。

To plan your ar­gu­ment, you can make a tra­di­tional out­line or visu­al­ize your ar­gu­ment in other ways. We re­com­mend us­ing a chart-like out­line or visual or­gan­izer known as a story­board. A story­board is like an out­line broken into pieces and spread over sev­eral pages, with lots of space for adding data and ideas as you go. Story­boards are more flex­ible than out­lines. You can cre­ate them us­ing an app or on­line tool or, as we do, with in­dex cards, sticky notes, or sheets of pa­per. To start a story­board, write your main claim and each reason (and sub-reason) at the top of sep­ar­ate cards or pages. Then be­low each reason (or sub-reason), list the evid­ence that sup­ports it. If you don’t have the evid­ence yet, note the kind of evid­ence you’ll need. If you ex­pect that you will have to ex­plain how your reason sup­ports its claim, add a page for its war­rant. You can also add pages for ac­know­ledg­ments of other views and your re­sponses.

你可以先把故事板页面留空,等准备好再填写内容;你也可以在构思论点和文章结构的过程中随时调整页面顺序。你可以把页面铺满整面墙,把相关的页面分组,把次要部分放在主要部分下方,这样就能一目了然地看到整个论证的框架。用这种方式来构思论证,可以帮助你发现哪些地方需要进一步展开,也可以让你尝试不同的组织方式,从而选择最佳方案。

You can leave story­board pages un­fin­ished un­til you are ready to fill them, and you can move pages around as you fig­ure out your ar­gu­ment and the or­gan­iz­a­tion of your pa­per. You can spread pages across a wall, group re­lated pages, and put minor sec­tions be­low ma­jor ones so that you can see at a glance the design of your whole ar­gu­ment. Pic­tur­ing your ar­gu­ment in this way can help you identify places where it needs to be de­veloped more fully, and it can let you try out dif­fer­ent ways of or­gan­iz­ing it so that you can choose the best one.

这是小学语言教学研究项目的部分故事板。它反映了研究人员目前的思考状态,随着项目的推进和想法的不断发展,它可能会也应该随之改变。第一页阐述了研究人员的研究问题和工作假设——即一个指导研究的暂定假设,但可能会随着项目的进展而改变——以及一些备选方案,其中一个已被研究人员否决。这些理由分为两类,一类侧重于……一份计划探讨了学习语言的最佳时机,另一份计划则探讨了学习语言的益处。该计划包含致谢和回应部分,但关于文化意识的页面几乎是空白的,因为研究人员尚未找到支持这一论点的充分证据(如果进一步的研究未能找到证据,他们可能不得不放弃这一论点,甚至修改其内容)。

Here is part of a story­board for a re­search pro­ject on teach­ing lan­guages in ele­ment­ary schools. It’s a snap­shot of the re­search­ers’ think­ing at the present mo­ment, and it can and should change as the re­search­ers’ pro­ject pro­gresses and ideas de­velop. The first page states the re­search­ers’ ques­tion and work­ing claim—that is, a pro­vi­sional claim that will guide re­search but prob­ably change as the pro­ject pro­gresses—along with some al­tern­at­ives, in­clud­ing one the re­search­ers have re­jec­ted. The reas­ons fall into two groups, one fo­cused on when lan­guages are best learned and the other on their be­ne­fits. The plan in­cludes an ac­know­ledg­ment and re­sponse, but the page for cul­tural aware­ness is al­most blank, be­cause the re­search­ers have not yet dis­covered the right evid­ence to sup­port that reason (and if fur­ther re­search doesn’t pro­duce it, they may have to aban­don that reason and even change the claim).

这是一份关于小学语言教学项目的七页故事板的前三页。第一页的标题是问题“小学是否应该教授英语以外的语言?”,紧接着是论点“小学应该将英语以外的语言教学作为优先事项”。此外,还有备选论点1:“小学应该专注于教授阅读、写作和数学(即“三R”),而不是语言”,该论点已被划掉;以及备选论点2:“只有在不影响其他更重要优先事项的情况下,小学才应该教授英语以外的语言。”第二页的标题是理由“儿童的学习能力”,紧接着是“儿童在年幼时更容易学习语言”,并附有注释“(与关于成人语言学习者熟练程度的观点相关:与语言教学的最佳时机有关。)”。它还列举了以下证据:“Johnson 2018:不同年龄段儿童语言学习者的比较研究。提供了良好的定量数据。McDaniel 2020:认知心理学研究。认为幼儿在神经学上更容易接受语言。教师访谈:我们小组采访了四位教授不同级别西班牙语的教师。教师们反映,年龄较小的语言学习者掌握得更快。” 最后提出了以下问题:“(我们的访谈结果与Johnson的研究结果有何异同?教师的观点与Johnson的观点一致吗?)” 第三页的标题是“成人语言学习者的熟练程度”,紧接着是“成人语言学习者难以达到流利水平”,并附注:“(与‘儿童学习能力’相关的部分:也探讨了语言教学的最佳时机。)”它还列举了以下证据:“Johnson 2018:《不同年龄段儿童语言学习者的比较研究》。提供了良好的定量数据。Franklin 2014:《纽约市多语家庭研究》。报告指出,许多第一代成年移民仍然主要使用他们的母语。”

这是关于小学语言教学项目的七页故事板的最后四页。第四页的标题是“思维训练”,紧接着是“学习第二语言可以训练思维,培养更优秀、更灵活的思考者”,并附注“(将‘文化意识’列为语言学习的益处之一。这一点是否可以作为我们的主要理由之一?培养文化意识和思维训练哪个更重要?)”。该页还列出了证据“Yamato 2006:报告显示,开设语言课程的学校的学生在定量推理测试中表现更佳”,并附注“(这项研究的普遍适用性如何?所研究的具体语言是否会影响结果?)”。第五页的标题是“文化意识”,紧接着是“学习第二语言可以让学生了解其他文化”,并附注“(将‘思维训练’列为语言学习的益处之一)。”此外,该页还列出了三个问号作为证据。第六页的标题是“与其他优先事项的冲突”,紧接着是“教授语言可能会分散学校教授‘三项基本技能’(读、写、算)的精力”,以及回应:“固定饼图谬误?参考Yamato 2006年的研究?如果学习语言的学生在定量推理测试中的表现优于未学习语言的学生,这是否意味着语言学习至少对‘三项基本技能’中的一项有所帮助?Chase 2007年的研究也提出了类似的观点。”第七页的标题是“资源”,紧接着是“一些学校缺乏教授语言所需的人员或资金”,以及回应:“资源匮乏并不意味着教授语言没有价值或不应成为优先事项。在一些学校教授语言仍然比完全不教授语言要好。是否有其他可用的资金来源?州或联邦政府的拨款?私人基金会?”

5.6  创建你的企业文化

5.6  Cre­at­ing Your Ethos

最后总结一下:本章我们介绍了构成所有论证的五个要素——主张、理由、证据、论据、承认和回应。但论证还隐含着第六个要素:传统上……这被称为你的信誉。你的听众不仅会根据你的论证的理性构建来评判你的论点,还会根据你阐述论点时所展现的品格来评判。你是否像那种能够通过提供必要的背景信息来引导听众,为你的论点提供充分(既不过分也不过分)的论据,并能深思熟虑地从各个角度考虑问题的人?或者,你是否像……你是否只看到一种观点,而忽略甚至无视他人的观点?同样,在你的写作风格或表达方式中,你是否展现出对听众需求的体贴和对他们时间和注意力的尊重,还是显得生硬、傲慢或自说自话、晦涩难懂?(我们将在第15章和第16章探讨这些问题

A fi­nal word: In this chapter, we have in­tro­duced you to the five ele­ments—claims, reas­ons, evid­ence, war­rants, and ac­know­ledg­ments and re­sponses—from which all ar­gu­ments are com­posed. But ar­gu­ments have an im­pli­cit sixth ele­ment as well: what is tra­di­tion­ally called your ethos. Your audi­ence will judge your ar­gu­ments not just as in­tel­lec­tual con­struc­tions but also by the char­ac­ter you pro­ject when you make them. Do you seem to be the sort of per­son who brings the audi­ence along by provid­ing ne­ces­sary back­ground in­form­a­tion, who of­fers suf­fi­cient (neither thin nor ex­cess­ive) sup­port for your claims, who thought­fully con­siders is­sues from all sides? Or do you seem to be someone who sees only one point of view and dis­misses or even ig­nores the views of oth­ers? Like­wise, in your style of writ­ing or your man­ner of present­ing, do you show that you are sens­it­ive to your audi­ence’s needs and re­spect­ful of their time and at­ten­tion, or do you come off as terse, ar­rog­ant, or self-in­dul­gently opaque? (We’ll con­sider these con­cerns in chapters 15 and 16.)

当你清晰、尊重地沟通,并预见并解决听众的疑问和顾虑时(这也是致谢和回应如此重要的原因之一),你就能赢得他们的信任,并让他们有充分的理由你合作,共同开发和测试新想法。从长远来看,你在每次论证中展现出的风范会逐渐转化为你的声誉——这是每位研究人员都必须重视的——因为你的声誉是你所有论证中不可或缺的第六个要素。它回答了那个未说出口的问题:我能信任你吗?答案必须是肯定的

When you com­mu­nic­ate clearly and re­spect­fully and an­ti­cip­ate and ad­dress your audi­ence’s ques­tions and con­cerns (this is an­other reason ac­know­ledg­ments and re­sponses are so im­port­ant), you earn their con­fid­ence and give them good reason to work with you in de­vel­op­ing and test­ing new ideas. In the long run, the ethos you pro­ject in in­di­vidual ar­gu­ments hardens into your repu­ta­tion—some­thing every re­searcher must care about—be­cause your repu­ta­tion is the ta­cit sixth ele­ment in every ar­gu­ment you make. It an­swers the un­spoken ques­tion Can I trust you? That an­swer must be Yes.

▶ 小贴士:一个常见的错误——依赖你已知的知识

▶ Quick Tip: A Com­mon Mis­take—Fall­ing Back on What You Know

如果你是一位经验不足的研究者,你可能会过于依赖熟悉的事物。你可能会过早地接受某个论断,甚至在进行大量研究之前就妄下断言,因为你“知道”自己能够证明它。但依赖这种确定性只会阻碍你进行最佳思考。作为一名研究者,意味着要允许自己被发现和洞见所震撼。因此,当你开始一个项目时,不要从你确信能够证明的论断入手,而是要从你想要探索和解决的问题入手。

If you are an in­ex­per­i­enced re­searcher, you may be temp­ted to rely too heav­ily on what feels fa­mil­iar. You might em­brace a claim too early, per­haps even be­fore you have done much re­search, be­cause you “know” you can prove it. But fall­ing back on that kind of cer­tainty will just keep you from do­ing your best think­ing. Be­ing a re­searcher means al­low­ing your­self to be sur­prised by your dis­cov­er­ies and in­sights. So when you start a pro­ject, be­gin not with a claim you know you can prove but with a prob­lem you want to ex­plore and solve.

同样,当你初涉某个领域时,你可能会倾向于依赖那些你从教育或经验中熟悉的论证方式。如果你在文学课上学会了通过引用和分析原文来支撑论点,不要以为在强调“客观数据”的领域,比如生物学或实验心理学,也能做到这一点。另一方面,如果你作为生物学或心理学专业的学生,​​学会了通过收集确凿数据和进行统计分析来支撑论点,也不要以为在艺术史领域也能做到这一点。但这并不意味着你在一个领域学到的东西在另一个领域毫无用处。所有领域的论证都依赖于我们在此描述的要素。但你必须了解每个领域处理这些要素的独特方式,并保持足够的灵活性去适应,同时相信你所掌握的技能。

Like­wise, when you are new to a field, you may be temp­ted to rely on ways of ar­guing that are fa­mil­iar to you from your edu­ca­tion or ex­per­i­ence. If, in a lit­er­at­ure class, you learned to sup­port your claims by present­ing and ana­lyz­ing quo­ta­tions, do not as­sume that you can do the same in fields that em­phas­ize “ob­ject­ive data,” such as bio­logy or ex­per­i­mental psy­cho­logy. On the other hand, if as a bio­logy or psy­cho­logy ma­jor you learned to sup­port your claims by gath­er­ing hard data and per­form­ing stat­ist­ical ana­lyses, do not as­sume that you can do the same in art his­tory. This does not mean that what you learn in one class is use­less in an­other. Ar­gu­ments in all fields rely on the ele­ments we de­scribe here. But you have to learn what’s dis­tinct­ive in the way a field handles those ele­ments and be flex­ible enough to ad­apt, trust­ing the skills you’ve learned.

随着你对研究领域的深入了解,你可能会倾向于以另一种方式过度简化问题。一些初级研究人员一旦成功地提出某种论点,就会反复使用。他们对一种复杂性的掌握反而让他们忽略了另一种复杂性:他们没有意识到,如果研究领域活跃的话,那么它本身就充满了相互竞争的方法论、相互竞争的解决方案、相互竞争的目标和目的。不要落入这个陷阱。如果你能提出一种论点,不妨尝试其他论点:寻找替代方法,不仅要提出多种解决方案,还要提出多种支持这些方案的论证方式,并思考其他人是否会用不同的方法来处理你的问题。

And as you be­come more fa­mil­iar with your field, you may be temp­ted to over­sim­plify in a dif­fer­ent way. When some be­gin­ning re­search­ers suc­ceed at mak­ing one kind of ar­gu­ment, they just keep mak­ing it over and over. Their mas­tery of one kind of com­plex­ity keeps them from re­cog­niz­ing an­other: they fail to see that their field, if it is an act­ive one, is marked by com­pet­ing meth­od­o­lo­gies, com­pet­ing solu­tions, com­pet­ing goals and ob­ject­ives. Don’t fall into this trap. If you can make one type of ar­gu­ment, try oth­ers: seek out al­tern­at­ive meth­ods, for­mu­late not only mul­tiple solu­tions but mul­tiple ways of sup­port­ing them, ask whether oth­ers would ap­proach your prob­lem dif­fer­ently.

6 提出索赔

6  Mak­ing Claims

在本章中,我们将讨论如何识别能够回答你的研究问题的主张类型,以及如何判断一个主张是否足够具体和重要,可以作为你论证的主要主张。

In this chapter, we dis­cuss how to re­cog­nize the kind of claim that an­swers your re­search ques­tion and how to tell if a claim is spe­cific and sig­ni­fic­ant enough to serve as the main claim of your ar­gu­ment.

你需要对你的研究问题有一个初步的答案——也就是一个初步的论断——以此来集中精力寻找数据或信息,作为你研究论证的证据。在完善这个论断的过程中,你还必须确保它足够具体,具有可辩驳性,并且足够重要,值得论证。问问自己以下三个问题:

You need a pro­vi­sional an­swer to your re­search ques­tion—that is, a pro­vi­sional claim—to fo­cus your search for data or in­form­a­tion to use as evid­ence in your re­search ar­gu­ment. As you re­fine that claim, you must also be sure it is spe­cific enough to be ar­gu­able and sig­ni­fic­ant enough to need ar­guing for. Ask your­self three ques­tions:

  1. 1. 我应该提出什么样的索赔?
  2. 1. What kind of claim should I make?
  3. 2. 它是否足够具体,可以提出支持它的论点?
  4. 2. Is it spe­cific enough to sug­gest an ar­gu­ment for it?
  5. 3. 我的听众会认为这件事重要到需要论证吗?
  6. 3. Will my audi­ence think it is sig­ni­fic­ant enough to need an ar­gu­ment sup­port­ing it?

当你能够回答这三个问题时,你就可以开始构建你的论点了。

When you can an­swer those three ques­tions, you’re ready to as­semble your ar­gu­ment.

6.1  确定您应该提出的索赔类型

6.1  De­term­in­ing the Kind of Claim You Should Make

你提出的问题类型决定了你提出的主张类型以及你需要用何种论证来支持它。正如我们在第二章中看到的,学术研究者通常提出的不是实际问题,而是概念性问题,这类问题的解决要求人们理解而非采取行动。

The kind of prob­lem you pose de­term­ines the kind of claim you make and the kind of ar­gu­ment you need to sup­port it. As we saw in chapter 2, aca­demic re­search­ers usu­ally pose not prac­tical prob­lems but con­cep­tual ones, the kind whose solu­tion asks someone not to act but to un­der­stand.

我们也可以通过观察主张来做出类似的区分,因为它们可以回答一系列问题:某事物或某种情况是否存在?如果存在,我们应该如何描述它?它是如何变成这样的? 方式是什么?是好是坏?可以或应该如何应对?前四个问题的答案是概念性主张。第五个问题的答案是实践性主张。您可以提出的主张将属于以下一个或多个类别:

We can make a sim­ilar dis­tinc­tion when it comes to claims by no­ti­cing that they can ad­dress a range of ques­tions: Does a thing or a situ­ation ex­ist? If so, how should we char­ac­ter­ize it? How did it get this way? Is it good or bad? What can or should be done about it? An­swers to the first four of these ques­tions are con­cep­tual claims. An­swers to the fifth are prac­tical claims. The claims you can make will fall into one (or more) of the fol­low­ing classes:

概念性主张

CON­CEP­TUAL CLAIMS

  • ▪ 关于事实或存在的主张:
    1. 中国和印度的花生产量合计占世界总产量的一半以上。
    2. ▪ 定义和分类的主张:
    3. 花生脱壳机是一种专门用于在花生烤熟后将其去壳的机器。
    4. 花生是豆类,不是坚果。
    5. ▪ 因果关系主张:
    6. 对花生高度过敏的人,即使只是触摸花生,也可能引发严重的过敏反应。
    7. ▪ 评估或鉴定的主张:
    8. 花生真是太好吃了。
  • ▪  Claims of fact or ex­ist­ence:
    1. To­gether, China and In­dia grow more than half of the world’s pea­nuts.
    2. ▪  Claims of defin­i­tion and clas­si­fic­a­tion:
    3. A pea­nut sheller is a spe­cial­ized ma­chine used to shell pea­nuts after they are roas­ted.
    4. Pea­nuts are legumes, not nuts.
    5. ▪  Claims of cause and con­sequence:
    6. Just touch­ing a pea­nut can pro­voke severe re­ac­tions in those who are highly al­ler­gic to them.
    7. ▪  Claims of eval­u­ation or ap­praisal:
    8. Pea­nuts are ab­so­lutely de­li­cious.
  • 实际应用
  • PRAC­TICAL CLAIMS
  • ▪ 诉讼或政策索赔:
    1. 联邦政府应降低贸易壁垒以增加花生出口。
  • ▪  Claims of ac­tion or policy:
    1. The fed­eral gov­ern­ment should lower trade bar­ri­ers to in­crease pea­nut ex­ports.

对于事实或存在性的主张,你必须提供证据证明某种情况确实如你所描述的那样。定义或分类的主张依赖于对相似性或差异性的推理,这种推理将一个实体归入某个更广泛的类别,或将其与其他实体区分开来。因果关系的主张将一系列事实联系起来,以表明某种情况确实(或并非)由另一种情况导致或引发。评价或评估的主张依赖于判断标准来证明其合理性。为什么某件事物是好是坏(或者比另一件事物更好或更差)。这些都是概念性的论断。

For claims of fact or ex­ist­ence, you must provide evid­ence that a situ­ation is, in fact, as you char­ac­ter­ize it. Claims of defin­i­tion or clas­si­fic­a­tion de­pend on reas­on­ing about sim­il­ar­it­ies or dif­fer­ences that as­signs an en­tity to some broader class or dis­tin­guishes it from other en­tit­ies. Claims of cause or con­sequence con­nect sets of facts to show that some situ­ation does (or doesn’t) fol­low from or lead to an­other. Claims of eval­u­ation or ap­praisal de­pend on cri­teria of judg­ment to jus­tify why some­thing is good or bad (or bet­ter or worse than some­thing else). These are all con­cep­tual claims.

第五类主张是行动或政策主张,属于实践性主张,通常建立在先前的概念性主张之上:一个概念性主张定义问题或证明问题的存在,另一个概念性主张指出问题的原因,还有一个概念性主张解释你提出的方案如何解决问题。在论证一项实践性主张时,你可能需要解释以下内容:

The fifth type, a claim of ac­tion or policy, is a prac­tical claim and usu­ally rests on prior con­cep­tual claims: one that defines the prob­lem or demon­strates that a prob­lem ex­ists, an­other that iden­ti­fies its causes, and still an­other that ex­plains how do­ing what you pro­pose will fix it. When ar­guing for a prac­tical claim, you may need to ex­plain the fol­low­ing:

  • ▪ 为什么你的解决方案是可行的;如何用合理的时间和精力来实现它。
  • ▪  Why your solu­tion is feas­ible; how it can be im­ple­men­ted with reas­on­able time and ef­fort.
  • ▪ 为什么实施成本会低于解决问题的成本。
  • ▪  Why it will cost less to im­ple­ment than the cost of the prob­lem.
  • ▪ 为什么它不会造成比它所解决的问题更大的问题。
  • ▪  Why it will not cre­ate a big­ger prob­lem than the one it solves.
  • ▪ 为什么它比其他替代方案更好。
  • ▪  Why it is bet­ter than al­tern­at­ive solu­tions.

如果你的听众期待这些子论点,而你却没有提出,他们可能会完全否定你的论点。最后,不要为了强调某个概念性主张的重要性而强加一个实际行动,至少在文章开头不要这样做。如果你想提出一个概念性主张的实际应用,应该在论证的结尾,也就是论文或演讲的结论部分。在那里,你可以把它作为一个值得考虑的行动提出,而无需展开论证(我们将在第14章再次讨论这一点)。

If your audi­ence ex­pects these sub-ar­gu­ments and you don’t make them, your audi­ence may re­ject your whole ar­gu­ment. Fi­nally, don’t in­flate the im­port­ance of a con­cep­tual claim by tack­ing on a prac­tical ac­tion, at least not early on. If you want to sug­gest a prac­tical ap­plic­a­tion of your con­cep­tual claim, do so at the end of your ar­gu­ment, in the con­clu­sion to your pa­per or present­a­tion. There, you can of­fer it as an ac­tion worth con­sid­er­ing without hav­ing to de­velop a case for it (we re­turn to this point in chapter 14).

6.2  评估您的索赔

6.2  Eval­u­at­ing Your Claim

我们无法告诉你如何找到一个好的诉求,但我们可以向你展示好的诉求是什么样的,以及如何评估你已有的诉求。最重要的是,你的诉求应该既具体又重要。

We can’t tell you how to find a good claim, but we can show you what good claims look like and how to eval­u­ate the one you have. Above all, your claim should be both spe­cific and sig­ni­fic­ant.

6.2.1  明确你的诉求

6.2.1  Make Your Claim Spe­cific

模糊的主张会导致模糊的论证。你的主张越具体,就越有助于你构建论证。比较以下两个主张:

Vague claims lead to vague ar­gu­ments. The more spe­cific your claim, the more it helps you plan your ar­gu­ment. Com­pare these two claims:

远程办公对社会有害。

远程办公会减少公共交通的客流量,并削弱市中心零售商和餐馆的自然客户群,从而威胁城市中心的社会结构。

Re­mote work is det­ri­mental to so­ci­ety.

Re­mote work threatens the so­cial fab­ric of urban cen­ters by re­du­cing rider­ship on pub­lic trans­port­a­tion and erod­ing the nat­ural cus­tomer base for down­town re­tail­ers and res­taur­ants.

第一种说法过于笼统,我们几乎无法预知接下来的内容。第二种说法则包含一系列具体概念,为研究者提供思路或主题,以便在接下来的论证中展开。这种具体性预示着论证可能的发展方向。

The first is so vague that we have little idea about what’s to come. The second in­cludes a set of spe­cific con­cepts that give the re­searcher ideas or themes to de­velop in the ar­gu­ment that fol­lows. The claim’s spe­cificity sig­nals how the ar­gu­ment is likely to pro­ceed.

6.2.2  使您的主张具有实质性意义

6.2.2  Make Your Claim Sig­ni­fic­ant

在关注论断的具体性之后,受众最关注的是其重要性,他们衡量重要性的标准是:论断要求他们改变多少固有观念。虽然我们无法量化重要性,但可以粗略估计:如果受众接受某个论断,他们需要改变多少固有信念?这些信念又有多么根深蒂固?最重要的论断要求受众改变他们最坚定的信念(因此,他们会抵制这类论断)。

After the spe­cificity of a claim, an audi­ence looks most closely at its sig­ni­fic­ance, a qual­ity they meas­ure by how much it asks them to change what they think. While we can’t quantify sig­ni­fic­ance, we can roughly es­tim­ate it: If an audi­ence ac­cepts a claim, how many be­liefs must they change? And how found­a­tional are those be­liefs? The most sig­ni­fic­ant claims ask an audi­ence to change their most strongly held be­liefs (and they will res­ist such claims ac­cord­ingly).

研究界有时认为,如果一项研究成果仅仅提供了关于某个感兴趣主题的新信息,那么它就具有重要意义:

Re­search com­munit­ies some­times con­sider a claim sig­ni­fic­ant if it simply of­fers new in­form­a­tion on a topic of in­terest:

本文介绍六部十三世纪用拉丁文写成的威尔士语语法著作。这些语法著作是近期才被发现的,也是同类著作中仅存的几部。它们有助于我们更好地了解中世纪时期语法著作的丰富多样性。

I de­scribe here six thir­teenth-cen­tury Latin gram­mars of the Welsh lan­guage. Found just re­cently, these gram­mars are the only ex­amples of their kind. They help us bet­ter ap­pre­ci­ate the range of gram­mars writ­ten in the me­di­eval period.

(回想一下引言[ I.4.1 ]中提到的华夫饼爱好者协会的成员们,他们只是想通过一些有趣的事实来消遣。)

(Re­call the mem­bers of that Waffle Lov­ers So­ci­ety from the in­tro­duc­tion [I.4.1], who just wanted to be en­ter­tained by some in­ter­est­ing facts.)

但是,研究界更重视那些不仅提供新信息,而且利用这些信息来解决看似令人困惑、不一致或其他问题的研究成果:

But re­search com­munit­ies value claims more highly when they not only of­fer new in­form­a­tion but use that in­form­a­tion to settle what seems puzz­ling, in­con­sist­ent, or oth­er­wise prob­lem­atic:

长期以来,关于消费者信心波动如何影响股市一直存在争论,但新的统计工具表明,两者之间几乎没有关系……

There has been a long de­bate about how fluc­tu­ations in con­sumer con­fid­ence af­fect the stock mar­ket, but new stat­ist­ical tools sug­gest little re­la­tion­ship between . . .

而且,当某些主张颠覆看似早已尘埃落定时,他们会给予最高的重视:

And they value claims most highly when they up­set what seems long settled:

现代物理学长期以来一直坚信光速在任何时间、任何地点、任何条件下都是恒定的,但新的数据表明,事实可能并非如此。

It has long been an art­icle of faith in mod­ern phys­ics that the speed of light is con­stant every­where at all times, un­der all con­di­tions, but new data sug­gest it might not be.

这样的说法会遭到众多物理学家的反对,因为如果这是真的,那就意味着物理学家不仅要改变对光速的看法,还要改变对许多其他事情的看法。

A claim like that would be con­tested by le­gions of phys­i­cists be­cause if true, it would mean that phys­i­cists would have to change their minds not just about the speed of light but about lots of other things as well.

强调你的论点重要性的一个简单方法是承认它挑战了当前的认知(参见第9章)。关于远程工作的第二个论点已经足够具体,但可能仍然显得片面。因此,可以通过添加一个以“虽然”、“尽管“即便”等词语或短语开头的限定性从句来“充实”它:

One simple way to sig­nal the sig­ni­fic­ance of your claim is to ac­know­ledge the cur­rent un­der­stand­ing it chal­lenges (see chapter 9). That second claim about re­mote work is spe­cific enough, but it might still seem one-sided. So “thicken” it by in­tro­du­cing it with a qual­i­fy­ing clause be­gin­ning with a word or phrase like al­though, while, or even though:

虽然远程办公给公司和员工带来了许多好处,但它也威胁到城市中心的社会结构,因为它减少了公共交通的客流量,并削弱了市中心零售商和餐馆的自然客户群。

Al­though re­mote work of­fers many be­ne­fits to com­pan­ies and em­ploy­ees, it also threatens the so­cial fab­ric of urban cen­ters by re­du­cing rider­ship on pub­lic trans­port­a­tion and erod­ing the nat­ural cus­tomer base for down­town re­tail­ers and res­taur­ants.

你可以使用以“虽然”或类似词语开头的引导性从句来承认三种不同的观点:

You can use an in­tro­duct­ory clause be­gin­ning with al­though or a sim­ilar word to ac­know­ledge three kinds of al­tern­at­ive views:

  • ▪ 你的听众所相信但你的论点挑战的是:
    1. 尽管许多人认为远程办公几乎没有任何负面影响……
    2. ▪ 与你的观点相冲突的观点:
    3. 尽管一些较早的研究表明,远程办公并不会显著降低城市消费者的支出……
    4. ▪ 限制您索赔范围或保证金的条件:
    5. 尽管远程办公模式出现时间尚短,难以评估其对城市的长期影响……
  • ▪  Some­thing that your audi­ence be­lieves but your claim chal­lenges:
    1. Al­though many as­sume that re­mote work has few if any neg­at­ive con­sequences . . .
    2. ▪  A point of view that con­flicts with yours:
    3. Al­though some older re­search sug­gests that re­mote work does not sig­ni­fic­antly re­duce con­sumer spend­ing in cit­ies . . .
    4. ▪  A con­di­tion that lim­its the scope or con­fid­ence of your claim:
    5. Al­though it is dif­fi­cult to gauge the long-term ef­fects of re­mote work on cit­ies be­cause it is so new . . .

如果你的听众可能会想到这些限定条件,那就首先承认它们的存在。这不仅表明你理解他们的观点,也承诺会在论证过程中回应这些观点。

If your audi­ence might think of those qual­i­fic­a­tions, ac­know­ledge them first. You not only im­ply that you un­der­stand their views, but you com­mit your­self to re­spond­ing to them in the course of your ar­gu­ment.

如果你是一位资深研究人员,你会通过你的研究成果对所在领域(例如学术界)的认知和研究方式产生的改变程度来衡量其重要性。很少有科学成就能像传统DNA双螺旋结构模型那样意义重大。这项发现归功于詹姆斯·沃森和弗朗西斯·克里克。它不仅改变了科学家们对遗传学的思考方式,还在生物学、数学、历史学等学科领域创造了新的研究问题和机遇。沃森和克里克清楚地知道他们想要寻找的是什么。为了构建他们的模型,他们借鉴并整合了许多其他科学家几十年来的研究成果,其中包括莫里斯·威尔金斯和罗莎琳德·富兰克林的关键经验数据(关于这种情况的伦理问题,请参见17.2 )。

If you are an ad­vanced re­searcher, you meas­ure the sig­ni­fic­ance of your claim by how much it changes what your com­munity thinks and how it does its re­search. Few sci­entific ac­com­plish­ments have been as sig­ni­fic­ant as the model of the double-helix struc­ture of DNA tra­di­tion­ally cred­ited to James Wat­son and Fran­cis Crick. Not only did it make sci­ent­ists think about ge­net­ics dif­fer­ently, but it cre­ated new re­search ques­tions and op­por­tun­it­ies in dis­cip­lines from bio­logy to math­em­at­ics to his­tory. Wat­son and Crick knew what they were look­ing for. To ar­rive at their model, they built on and in­teg­rated re­search find­ings by many other sci­ent­ists go­ing back dec­ades, in­clud­ing cru­cial em­pir­ical data be­long­ing to Maurice Wilkins and Ros­alind Frank­lin (see 17.2 for more about the eth­ics of this situ­ation).

但重大发现往往出乎意料。我们的一位同事,人类学家法卢·恩戈姆(Fallou Ngom)在他已故父亲的遗物中发现了一份用类似阿拉伯文字书写的文字,读起来像是西非语言沃洛夫语。恩戈姆感到困惑:虽然他在塞内加尔长大,但他从未听说过这种文字系统;事实上,他一直以为他的父亲根本不识字。出于好奇,他开始寻找其他类似的文字,结果发现到处都有。从西方学术的角度来看,他发现的是阿贾米文字('Ajamī),一种源自阿拉伯文字并用于书写多种西非语言的文字系统。恩戈姆的发现颠覆了长期以来以欧洲为中心的观念,即许多西非社会都是文盲,而事实上,它们拥有可以追溯到几个世纪前的丰富文字文化。这一发现也为研究开辟了新的视野。

But sig­ni­fic­ant dis­cov­er­ies also come by sur­prise. One of our col­leagues, the an­thro­po­lo­gist Fal­lou Ngom, found among his de­ceased father’s pa­pers a piece of writ­ing in an Ar­abic-like script that read like the West African lan­guage Wo­lof. Ngom was puzzled: al­though he had been raised in Senegal, he was un­aware that such a writ­ing sys­tem ex­is­ted; in fact, he had thought that his father couldn’t write at all. Curi­ous, he began look­ing for other ex­amples of such writ­ing and found it every­where. What he dis­covered (from the per­spect­ive of West­ern schol­ar­ship) was ‘Ajamī, a writ­ing sys­tem ad­ap­ted from Ar­abic used to write a host of West African lan­guages. Ngom’s dis­cov­ery upen­ded the long-es­tab­lished Euro­centric be­lief that many West African so­ci­et­ies were il­lit­er­ate when in fact they have rich writ­ten cul­tures go­ing back cen­tur­ies. And in so do­ing, it opened up new ho­ri­zons for re­search.

这些故事展现了发现与专业知识之间复杂的关系:沃森和克里克利用他们的研究群体的工作成果解决了他们最重要的问题之一;恩戈姆在西方历史学和人类学学科方面的专业知识(他在法国和美国的大学接受了研究训练)使他能够从他父亲的论文中看到这些学科的重要性。

These stor­ies show the com­plex re­la­tion­ship between dis­cov­ery and ex­pert­ise: Wat­son and Crick drew on the work of their re­search com­munity to solve one of its most im­port­ant prob­lems; Ngom’s ex­pert­ise in the West­ern dis­cip­lines of his­tory and an­thro­po­logy (he re­ceived his train­ing as a re­searcher at French and Amer­ican uni­ver­sit­ies) al­lowed him to see the im­port­ance for those dis­cip­lines of that note in his father’s pa­pers.

你不必提出惊世骇俗的论断才能对研究界做出有益的贡献。即使是微小的发现,如果能够挑战现有知识或提出新的问题,也可能意义重大(参见第一章)。例如,如果你发现马丁·路德·金在高中时期写过一篇关于某位哲学家的论文,历史学家就会仔细研究金后来的著作,寻找这种影响的痕迹。

You don’t have to of­fer a sweep­ing claim to make a use­ful con­tri­bu­tion to a re­search com­munity. Even small find­ings can be sig­ni­fic­ant if they chal­lenge cur­rent know­ledge or raise new ques­tions (see chapter 1). If, for ex­ample, you dis­covered that Mar­tin Luther King Jr. wrote a high school pa­per on some philo­sopher, his­tor­i­ans would comb King’s later writ­ings for traces of that in­flu­ence.

当然,如果你是一名学生或某个领域的新研究人员,你可能无法提出挑战专家观点的论断(或者无法识别出专家的观点)。当你发现这类论断时,可以先进行核实。但你仍然可以通过将你的论断置于你自身以及你的班级或同伴的知识和思维背景下进行思考,来体验为研究群体提出论证的意义。想象一下,听众都是和你一样的人。在你开始研究之前,你是怎么想的?你的论断在多大程度上改变了现在的想法?现在理解了哪些以前不理解的东西?这是准备回答任何研究者都可能面临的最重要问题的最佳方式:不是“我为什么要相信这个?”,而是“我为什么要关心这个?”(参见 I.4.3、2.5 和 9.1)。

Of course, if you are a stu­dent or a new re­searcher in a field, you may not be able to make claims that chal­lenge the ex­perts (or to re­cog­nize such claims when you find them). But you can still ex­per­i­ence what it means to make ar­gu­ments for a re­search com­munity by con­sid­er­ing your claims in the con­text of your own know­ledge and think­ing, and that of your class or peers. Ima­gine an audi­ence made up of people like your­self. What did you think be­fore you began your re­search? How much has your claim changed what you now think? What do you un­der­stand now that you didn’t be­fore? That’s the best way to pre­pare to an­swer the most im­port­ant ques­tion any re­searcher can face: not Why should I be­lieve this? but Why should I care? (See I.4.3, 2.5, and 9.1.)

6.3  提升信誉度的合格声明

6.3  Qual­i­fy­ing Claims to En­hance Your Cred­ib­il­ity

一些新晋研究者认为,他们的论断越有力,就越可信。然而,傲慢的自信最会损害你的信誉。看似矛盾的是,谦逊地承认自身论证的局限性,反而能增强论证的说服力和可信度。当你认可并回应听众的观点时,就能赢得他们的信任,表明你不仅理解了他们的立场,而且认真考虑了他们的立场(参见第九章)。但如果你随后提出过于夸张的论断,就会失去这份信任。因此,要限定论断的范围和确定性,使其仅限于你的论证能够支持的内容。

Some new re­search­ers think their claims are most cred­ible when they are stated most force­fully. But noth­ing dam­ages your ethos more than ar­rog­ant cer­tainty. As para­dox­ical as it seems, you make your ar­gu­ment stronger and more cred­ible by mod­estly ac­know­ledging its lim­its. You gain the trust of your audi­ence when you ac­know­ledge and re­spond to their views, show­ing that you have not only un­der­stood but con­sidered their po­s­i­tions (see chapter 9). But you can lose that trust if you then make claims that over­reach. Limit your claims to what your ar­gu­ment can ac­tu­ally sup­port by qual­i­fy­ing their scope and cer­tainty.

6.3.1  承认限制条件

6.3.1  Ac­know­ledge Lim­it­ing Con­di­tions

每项索赔都有限制条件:

Every claim has lim­it­ing con­di­tions:

我们预计,如果目前的保护措施继续实施,切萨皮克湾的蓝蟹数量将继续增长。

根据现有经济数据,全球经济衰退的可能性似乎不大。

根据目前的气候模型,地球温度最早可能在 2030 年代中期比工业化前水平升高 2 摄氏度。

We ex­pect the blue crab pop­u­la­tion in the Ches­apeake Bay to con­tinue ex­pand­ing, as­sum­ing today’s con­ser­va­tion meas­ures re­main in place.

Based on avail­able eco­nomic data, a global re­ces­sion ap­pears un­likely.

Ac­cord­ing to cur­rent cli­mate mod­els, the earth could warm to two de­grees Celsius over pre-in­dus­trial levels as soon as the mid-2030s.

因此,只需提及听众可能想到的例子即可。科学家很少承认他们的论断取决于仪器的精度,因为这种局限性适用于所有科学测量。但经济学家经常承认其论断的局限性,因为他们的预测会受到不断变化的情况的影响。因为他们想表明需要关注哪些条件。在下一个例子中,作者提及限制条件,使得论点能够得到更完整、更准确的阐述:

So men­tion only those that your audi­ence might plaus­ibly think of. Sci­ent­ists rarely ac­know­ledge that their claims de­pend on the ac­cur­acy of their in­stru­ments be­cause that lim­it­a­tion ap­plies to every sci­entific meas­ure­ment. But eco­nom­ists of­ten ac­know­ledge lim­its on their claims be­cause their pre­dic­tions are sub­ject to chan­ging con­di­tions and be­cause they want to sig­nal what con­di­tions to watch for. In this next ex­ample, the writer’s men­tion of lim­it­ing con­di­tions al­lows for a fuller and more ac­cur­ate state­ment of the claim:

如今,富兰克林·罗斯福广受尊敬,但在他第二个任期末期,至少在美国社会的某些群体中,他的支持率却很低例如,报纸抨击他宣扬社会主义,认为这是现代政府陷入困境的标志。1938年,中西部地区70%的报纸指责他想让政府管理银行系统……有些人持不同观点,包括尼科尔森(1983,1992)和威金斯(1973),他们都提供了一些轶事,表明但这些说法仅仅基于那些有意将罗斯福神化的人的记忆。除非 能够证明批评罗斯福的报纸受到特殊利益集团的控制,否则这种说法存在局限性,即这些报纸的攻击表明民众对罗斯福的总统任期存在严重的不满。

Today Frank­lin D. Roosevelt is widely revered, but to­ward the end of his second term, he was quite un­pop­u­lar, at least among cer­tain seg­ments of Amer­ican so­ci­ety.claim News­pa­pers, for ex­ample, at­tacked him for pro­mot­ing so­cial­ism, a sign that a mod­ern ad­min­is­tra­tion is in trouble. In 1938, 70 per­cent of Mid­w­est news­pa­pers ac­cused him of want­ing the gov­ern­ment to man­age the bank­ing sys­tem. . . . Some have ar­gued oth­er­wise, in­clud­ing Nich­olson (1983, 1992) and Wig­gins (1973), both of whom of­fer an­ec­dotal re­ports that Roosevelt was al­ways in high re­gard,ac­know­ledg­ment but these re­ports are sup­por­ted only by the memor­ies of those who had an in­terest in dei­fy­ing FDR.re­sponse Un­less it can be shown that the news­pa­pers crit­ical of Roosevelt were con­trolled by spe­cial in­terests,lim­it­a­tion on claim their at­tacks demon­strate sig­ni­fic­ant pop­u­lar dis­sat­is­fac­tion with Roosevelt’s pres­id­ency.re­state­ment of claim

6.3.2  利用对冲来限制确定性

6.3.2  Use Hedges to Limit Cer­tainty

我们很少能绝对肯定地陈述自己的观点。谨慎的作者会用一些词语和短语来限定他们的确定性,这些词语和短语被称为“缓和语”

Only rarely can we state our claims with ab­so­lute cer­tainty. Care­ful writers qual­ify their cer­tainty with words and phrases called hedges.

沃森和克里克明白他们的 DNA 模型具有巨大的意义,但当他们宣布这一模型时,他们仍然对自己的说法有所保留(保留意见以粗体显示;引言部分已精简):

Wat­son and Crick un­der­stood the tre­mend­ous sig­ni­fic­ance of their model of DNA, but when they an­nounced it, they still hedged their claims (hedges are bold­faced; the in­tro­duc­tion is con­densed):

我们希望提出一种脱氧核糖核酸(DNA)盐的结构(注:此处不明确指出具体结构)。……鲍林和科里已经提出了核酸的结构。……我们认为,该结构存在两个不足之处:(1)我们认为, X射线衍射图谱所显示的物质是盐,而非游离酸。……(2)部分范德华距离似乎过小。(JD Watson 和 FHC Crick,《核酸的分子结构》)

We wish to sug­gest a [note: not state the] struc­ture for the salt of deoxyribose nuc­leic acid (D.N.A.). . . . A struc­ture for nuc­leic acid has already been pro­posed by Paul­ing and Corey. . . . In our opin­ion, this struc­ture is un­sat­is­fact­ory for two reas­ons: (1) We be­lieve that the ma­ter­ial which gives the X-ray dia­grams is the salt, not the free acid. . . . (2) Some of the van der Waals dis­tances ap­pear to be too small. (J. D. Wat­son and F. H. C. Crick, “Mo­lecu­lar Struc­ture of Nuc­leic Acids”)

去掉这些限定语,这些句子会更简洁,但也更具攻击性。请将谨慎的段落与这个更强硬的版本进行比较(这种攻击性很大程度上源于缺乏限定):

Without the hedges, these sen­tences would be more con­cise but also more ag­gress­ive. Com­pare that cau­tious pas­sage with this more force­ful ver­sion (much of the ag­gress­ive tone comes from the lack of qual­i­fic­a­tion):

我们在此公布脱氧核糖核酸(DNA)盐的结构……鲍林和科里此前已提出过核酸的结构……但他们的结构存在两个不足之小。

We an­nounce here the struc­ture for the salt of deoxyribose nuc­leic acid (D.N.A.). . . . A struc­ture for nuc­leic acid has already been pro­posed by Paul­ing and Corey. . . . Their struc­ture is un­sat­is­fact­ory for two reas­ons: (1) The ma­ter­ial which gives their X-ray dia­grams is the salt, not the free acid. . . . (2) Their van der Waals dis­tances are too small.

在大多数领域,听众对使用“所有”“没有人”“每个” 、“总是”、“从不”等词语表达的绝对确定性持怀疑态度,但如果你使用过多的模棱两可的措辞,又会显得畏首畏尾。不同的研究群体使用模棱两可的程度各不相同,找到合适的平衡点需要经验积累。因此,观察你所在领域的专家是如何运用模棱两可的措辞来论证观点的,并效仿他们的做法。

In most fields, audi­ences dis­trust pat cer­tainty ex­pressed in words like all, no one, every, al­ways, never, and so on, but if you hedge too much, you will seem timid. Dif­fer­ent re­search com­munit­ies use hedges to dif­fer­ent de­grees, and find­ing the right bal­ance is a mat­ter of ex­per­i­ence. So no­tice how ex­perts in your field hedge their ar­gu­ments and do like­wise.

▶ 小贴士:让你的索赔可质疑

▶ Quick Tip: Make Your Claim Con­test­able

你可以通过询问是否有人会费心反驳来衡量你的观点是否具有潜在意义。如果没有人反驳,那么你的观点可能就不值得争论。以下是三个因不同原因而显得站不住脚的观点:

You can gauge the po­ten­tial sig­ni­fic­ance of your claim by ask­ing whether any­one would bother to con­test it. If not, then your claim may not be worth ar­guing. Here are three claims, which are weak for dif­fer­ent reas­ons:

本报告总结了近期关于蜜蜂消失的研究成果。

巴拉克·奥巴马是美国第一位黑人总统。

在莎士比亚的《哈姆雷特》中,哈姆雷特并不是一个重要人物。

This re­port sum­mar­izes re­cent re­search on the dis­ap­pear­ance of bees.

Barack Obama was the first Black pres­id­ent of the United States.

Ham­let is not an im­port­ant char­ac­ter in Shakespeare’s Ham­let.

要评估这些说法是否值得反驳,请考虑它们的反面:

To as­sess whether these claims are worth con­test­ing, con­sider their op­pos­ites:

本报告并未总结近期关于蜜蜂消失的研究成果。

巴拉克·奥巴马并非美国第一位黑人总统。

哈姆雷特是莎士比亚戏剧《哈姆雷特》中的一个重要人物。

This re­port does not sum­mar­ize re­cent re­search on the dis­ap­pear­ance of bees.

Barack Obama was not the first Black pres­id­ent of the United States.

Ham­let is an im­port­ant char­ac­ter in Shakespeare’s Ham­let.

第一个论断仅仅是对报告主题的陈述。它的反面完全是无稽之谈。(准确地说,它是一个事实陈述,但事实是关于报告本身,而不是关于蜜蜂。)第二个论断(也是一个事实陈述)很容易验证。它的反面显然是错误的。第三个论断(一个评价性论断)或许看似有力,但它的反面显而易见,无需赘言。莎士比亚将他的戏剧命名为《丹麦王子哈姆雷特的悲剧》想必是有原因的。因此,这些论断都不值得争论——大概吧。

That first claim is merely an as­ser­tion of the re­port’s topic. Its op­pos­ite is just non­sensical. (To be pre­cise, it is a claim of fact, but the fact is about the re­port, not about the bees.) The second (also a claim of fact) is eas­ily veri­fi­able. Its op­pos­ite is demon­strably false. The third (a claim of eval­u­ation) may seem strong, but its op­pos­ite is so ob­vi­ous that it goes without say­ing. Shakespeare pre­sum­ably titled his play The Tragedy of Ham­let, Prince of Den­mark for a reason. So none of these claims are worth ar­guing—prob­ably.

该测试并非万无一失,一些伟大的思想家成功地反驳了看似不言而喻的说法,就像哥白尼那样,他当时愚蠢地断言——或者至少在当时看来是这样——太阳不是绕着地球转的

The test isn’t fool­proof, and some great thinkers have suc­cess­fully con­tra­dicted ap­par­ently self-evid­ent claims, as Co­per­ni­cus did when he as­ser­ted fool­ishly—or so it seemed at the time—that the sun does not go around the earth.

7. 汇集理由和证据

7  As­sem­bling Reas­ons and Evid­ence

本章我们将讨论两种论证方式:理由和证据。我们将向您展示如何区分二者,如何运用理由组织论证,以及如何评估证据的质量。

In this chapter, we dis­cuss two kinds of sup­port for a claim: reas­ons and evid­ence. We show you how to dis­tin­guish between the two, how to use reas­ons to or­gan­ize your ar­gu­ment, and how to eval­u­ate the qual­ity of your evid­ence.

听众首先关注论证的核心:论点及其支撑。他们会特别关注论点的理由,以此判断其合理性,并考察理由的顺序,以此判断其逻辑性。如果他们认为这些理由合情合理,就会查看你提供的证据。如果他们不相信这些证据,就会否定这些理由,进而否定你的论点。

Audi­ences look first for the core of an ar­gu­ment: a claim and its sup­port. They look par­tic­u­larly at its set of reas­ons to judge its plaus­ib­il­ity and their or­der to judge its lo­gic. If they think those reas­ons make sense, they will look at the evid­ence you present to back them up. If they don’t be­lieve the evid­ence, they’ll re­ject the reas­ons and, with them, your claim.

因此,在构建论点时,你必须提供一套合情合理的理由,并以清晰、逻辑的顺序排列,且这些理由必须基于听众能够接受的证据。本章将向你展示如何做到这一点。

So as you as­semble your ar­gu­ment, you must of­fer a plaus­ible set of reas­ons in a clear, lo­gical or­der, based on evid­ence your audi­ence will ac­cept. This chapter shows you how to do that.

7.1  运用理由来规划你的论点

7.1  Us­ing Reas­ons to Plan Your Ar­gu­ment

当你整理你的理由时,你就为你的论证构建了一个逻辑结构。之前我们建议你使用故事板来规划你的论证(参见5.5 )。如果你这样做,你可以用它来检验你论证的逻辑性和流畅性。查看故事板中的卡片或页面,阅读理由本身,而不是细节,看看它们的顺序是否合理。如果不合理,尝试不同的排列方式,直到找到合适的顺序。此时,你只是在规划和完善你的论证,而不是你的论文、报告或演示文稿。当你从论证本身转向思考如何最好地将其传达给他人时,你可能需要进行进一步的调整。我们将在第四部分

When you or­der your reas­ons, you build a lo­gical struc­ture for your ar­gu­ment. Earlier, we re­com­men­ded that you plan your ar­gu­ment us­ing a story­board (see 5.5). If you do, you can use it to test your ar­gu­ment’s lo­gic or flow. Look­ing at the cards or pages in your story­board, read the reas­ons, not the de­tails, to see if their or­der makes sense. If it doesn’t, try dif­fer­ent ar­range­ments un­til it does. At this point, you are plan­ning and de­vel­op­ing only your ar­gu­ment, not your pa­per, re­port, or present­a­tion. When you turn from your ar­gu­ment it­self to fig­ur­ing out how best to com­mu­nic­ate it to oth­ers, you may need to make fur­ther ad­just­ments. We’ll say more about draft­ing and de­liv­er­ing ar­gu­ments in part IV.

7.2  区分证据与理由

7.2  Dis­tin­guish­ing Evid­ence from Reas­ons

一旦你将理由按合理的顺序排列好,务必确保你有足够的证据来支持每一个理由。证据就是你用来支撑理由的信息。问题在于,你无权决定证据是否充分,而是由你的听众来决定。要构成证据,陈述必须包含听众不太可能质疑的内容,至少在论证过程中是如此。但如果他们质疑,你认为确凿的证据在他们看来就只是另一个理由而已。请看以下论证:

Once you’ve ar­ranged your reas­ons in a plaus­ible or­der, be sure you have suf­fi­cient evid­ence to sup­port each one. Your evid­ence is the in­form­a­tion you use to back up your reas­ons. The prob­lem is you don’t get to de­cide whether your evid­ence is suf­fi­cient; your audi­ence does. To count as evid­ence, a state­ment must re­port some­thing they can be ex­pec­ted not to ques­tion, at least for the pur­poses of the ar­gu­ment. But if they do ques­tion it, what you think is hard evid­ence be­comes for them only an­other reason. Con­sider this ar­gu­ment:

美国高等教育必须遏制不断上涨的学费因为大学学费正成为低收入学生进入中产阶级的一大障碍。理由是, 如今许多学生大学毕业时都背负着沉重的债务。

Amer­ican higher edu­ca­tion must curb es­cal­at­ing tu­ition costsclaim be­cause the price of col­lege is be­com­ing an im­ped­i­ment to lower-in­come stu­dents en­ter­ing the pro­fes­sional middle class.reason Today many stu­dents leave col­lege with a crush­ing debt bur­den.evid­ence

最后一句话以作者认为确凿的“事实”作为论据。但我们仍然可以质疑:这只是一个概括性的说法。有什么确凿的数据来支撑“众多学生”或“沉重的债务负担”?当我们提出这样的论断时,我们并非将其视为证据,而是将其视为一个次要理由,它本身也必须建立在证据之上。为了让我们信服,作者需要补充类似这样的内容:

That last sen­tence of­fers as evid­ence a state­ment its writers take to be a hard “fact.” But we could still ques­tion it: That’s just a gen­er­al­iz­a­tion. What hard num­bers do you have to back up “many stu­dents” or “crush­ing debt bur­den”? When we do, we treat that state­ment not as evid­ence but as a sec­ond­ary reason that must rest on evid­ence of its own. To sat­isfy us, the writers would have to add some­thing like this:

2020-2021学年,公立四年制大学43%的学生和私立四年制大学超过75%的学生背负联邦助学贷款,毕业生的平均债务超过3万美元

In 2020–21, 43 per­cent of stu­dents at pub­lic four-year col­leges and over 75 per­cent of stu­dents at private four-year in­sti­tu­tions held fed­eral stu­dent loans, and the av­er­age debt of bor­row­ers at gradu­ation was over $30,000.evid­ence

如果我们真的心存疑虑,我们可以再次追问:这些数据有什么依据?是什么能证明这种情况是一场危机?如果是这样,作者就必须提供更确凿的数据,将这些数据细化,以证明债务对应届毕业生的影响。如果他们有原始数据,就可以展示出来。如果他们的数据来自二手资料,就可以注明出处。但即便如此,这些数据仍然可能受到质疑:你们是如何收集数据的?我们凭什么相信你们的数据来源可靠?原则上,这类问题可以一直问下去,但我们希望理性的读者在某个时刻能够停止追问——否则我们谁也无法做出任何有意义的结论。你无需提出任何论点。你的责任是提供到目前为止的证据。

If we were really skep­tical, we could again ask, What backs up those num­bers? What jus­ti­fies the claim that this situ­ation is a crisis? If so, the writers would have to provide still harder data, break­ing down those num­bers to doc­u­ment the con­sequences of debt for re­cent gradu­ates. If they have it, they could show the raw data. If they drew those facts from a sec­ond­ary source, they could cite the source. But even then, those facts could be ques­tioned: How did you col­lect your data? Why should we be­lieve your source is re­li­able? Such ques­tions can, in prin­ciple, be asked forever, but at some point, we ex­pect reas­on­able audi­ences to stop—or none of us would be able to make any ar­gu­ments at all. Your re­spons­ib­il­ity is to of­fer evid­ence up to that point.

7.3  确定你需要哪种类型的证据

7.3  De­term­in­ing the Kind of Evid­ence You Need

你提出的论点类型将决定你需要何种理由来支撑它,以及你需要提供何种证据来佐证该理由。不同领域的学者往往依赖于各自特有的证据类型——经济学家和化学家可能更倾向于经验数据和统计模型;人类学家和社会学家可能依赖访谈和民族志;文学学者和历史学家可能需要文本或口述资料的引文——学习如何在某个领域进行研究,不仅意味着理解该领域的问题和挑战,还意味着学习如何找到或生成该领域论证所需的证据。但是,没有任何一个领域“拥有”某种特定类型的证据,或者仅仅依赖于任何单一类型的证据,尤其是在当今跨学科研究如此受重视的时代。

The kind of claim you make will de­term­ine the kind of reason you need to sup­port it and the kind of evid­ence you need to present to back up that reason. Re­search­ers in dif­fer­ent fields tend to rely on char­ac­ter­istic sorts of evid­ence—eco­nom­ists and chem­ists might prefer em­pir­ical data and stat­ist­ical mod­els; an­thro­po­lo­gists and so­ci­olo­gists might rely on in­ter­views and eth­no­graph­ies; lit­er­ary schol­ars and his­tor­i­ans might want quo­ta­tions from tex­tual or oral sources—and learn­ing how to do re­search in a field means not just un­der­stand­ing its prob­lems and ques­tions but also learn­ing how to find or pro­duce the kinds of evid­ence its ar­gu­ments re­quire. But no field “owns” a par­tic­u­lar sort of evid­ence or re­lies solely on any single kind, es­pe­cially today, when in­ter­dis­cip­lin­ary re­search is so prized.

因此,在构思论点时,既要考虑听众重视哪些类型的证据,也要考虑你需要哪些类型的证据来支持你的特定论点。以下是两个听起来相似但需要不同类型理由和证据的论点:

So as you plan your ar­gu­ment, con­sider both the sorts of evid­ence your audi­ence will value and the kind of evid­ence you need to sup­port any par­tic­u­lar reason. Here are two claims that sound sim­ilar but need dif­fer­ent kinds of reas­ons and evid­ence:

《母语者》中,李昌来有力地展现了第一代移民子女所经历的双重意识。

《母语者》一书中,李昌来准确地捕捉到了20世纪后期纽约市的种族政治。

In Nat­ive Speaker, Chang-rae Lee power­fully rep­res­ents the double con­scious­ness ex­per­i­enced by the chil­dren of first-gen­er­a­tion im­mig­rants.

In Nat­ive Speaker, Change-rae Lee ac­cur­ately cap­tures the ra­cial­ized polit­ics of late twen­ti­eth-cen­tury New York City.

第一种方法需要引用小说原文;第二种方法则需要引用原文并辅以历史证据。你需要的证据类型将决定你的研究方向。

For the first, you would need quo­ta­tions from the novel; for the second, you would need quo­ta­tions coupled with his­tor­ical evid­ence. The kind of evid­ence you need will in­flu­ence the kind of re­search you do.

7.4  区分证据与报告

7.4  Dis­tin­guish­ing Evid­ence from Re­ports of It

现在出现了一个复杂情况:研究人员很少会在任何论文或演示文稿中直接引用证据本身。即使你收集了自己的数据,比如在田野里数兔子,或者采访刚从投票站出来的选民,你也只能文字、数字、表格、图表、图片等等来提及或呈现这些兔子和选民。例如,当检察官在法庭上说琼斯犯有伪造商品罪,并列举了证据证明这一点时,这位检察官可以拿出从琼斯车库里找到的假冒古驰手提包,甚至可以让陪审员亲手触摸。(当然,检察官和陪审员都必须相信作证说在那里发现手提包的警官。)但是,当检察官撰写案件摘要时,手提包不能钉在纸上;它只能被提及或描述。

Now a com­plic­a­tion: Re­search­ers rarely in­clude in any pa­per or present­a­tion the evid­ence it­self. Even if you col­lect your own data, count­ing rab­bits in a field or in­ter­view­ing voters ex­it­ing from a polling sta­tion, you can only refer to or rep­res­ent those rab­bits and voters in words, num­bers, tables, graphs, pic­tures, and so on. For ex­ample, when a pro­sec­utor says in court, Jones is guilty of coun­ter­feit­ing goods, and here is the evid­ence to prove it, that pro­sec­utor can hold up a fake Gucci hand­bag re­covered from Jones’s gar­age and even let jur­ors hold it in their own hands. (Of course, both the pro­sec­utor and the jur­ors must be­lieve the of­ficer who test­i­fies to find­ing it there in the first place.) But when the pro­sec­utor writes a brief on the case, the hand­bag can’t be stapled to the page; it can only be re­ferred to or de­scribed.

同样,研究人员也不能与受众分享“证据本身”。例如:

In the same way, re­search­ers can­not share with their audi­ences “the evid­ence it­self.” For ex­ample:

情绪在理性决策中扮演的角色比许多人想象的要大。事实上,如果没有大脑的情感中枢,我们就无法做出理性的决定。支持论点的理由1:一些大脑情感中枢受到物理损伤的人甚至无法做出最简单的决定。支持理由2:例如,以Y先生为例…… (证据报告)

Emo­tions play a lar­ger role in ra­tion­al­ity than many think.claim In fact, without the emo­tional cen­ters of the brain, we could not make ra­tional de­cisions.reason 1 sup­port­ing claim Some people whose brains have sus­tained phys­ical dam­age to their emo­tional cen­ters can­not make the simplest de­cisions.reason 2 sup­port­ing reason 1 For ex­ample, con­sider the case of Mr. Y, who . . .re­port of evid­ence

这种论点并没有提供脑损伤患者的真实案例作为证据;它只能报告对他们行为的观察结果、脑部扫描图像、反应时间表格等等。(事实上,我们更愿意阅读他人的报告,而不是自己进行脑部测试和解读功能磁共振成像扫描结果。)

That ar­gu­ment doesn’t of­fer as evid­ence real people with dam­aged brains; it can only re­port ob­ser­va­tions of their be­ha­vior, cop­ies of their brain scans, tables of their re­ac­tion times, and so on. (In fact, we prefer to read re­ports of oth­ers than to have to test brains and read fMRI scans ourselves.)

我们知道证据和证据报告之间的区别。这或许听起来像是个不错的例子,但我们坚持强调这一点是为了突出一个重要的观点:证据很少独立存在或不言自明;它几乎总是被用来支持某种论点,并且会受到这种用途的影响。当你从某个来源获取数据或信息时,请记住,这些数据或信息已经被整理成某种形式,以服务于该来源的目的。同样地,当你将自己收集或发现的数据或信息作为证据提交时,请记住,你不可避免地会通过你的研究方法以及你选择的报告方式来塑造它,使其符合你的目的。事实上,甚至在你开始收集任何数据之前,你就必须决定要统计什么、如何对数据进行分类、如何排序,以及是以表格、柱状图还是图表的形式呈现。即使是照片和视频录像也反映了某种特定的观点。简而言之,事实既受到收集者的影响,也受到使用者意图的影响。

We know this dis­tinc­tion between evid­ence and re­ports of evid­ence must seem like a fine one, but we in­sist on it to em­phas­ize an im­port­ant point: Evid­ence rarely stands alone or speaks for it­self; it is al­most al­ways used to sup­port some reason, and it is shaped by that use. When you take data or in­form­a­tion from a source, re­mem­ber that it has been put into a form that serves that source’s ends. Like­wise, when you present as evid­ence data or in­form­a­tion you gathered or dis­covered your­self, re­mem­ber that you in­ev­it­ably shape it to your ends, through your re­search meth­ods and how you choose to re­port it. In fact, even be­fore you star­ted col­lect­ing any­thing at all, you had to de­cide what to count, how to cat­egor­ize the num­bers, how to or­der them, whether to present them in the form of a table, bar chart, or graph. Even pho­to­graphs and video re­cord­ings re­flect a par­tic­u­lar point of view. In short, facts are shaped by those who col­lect them and again by the in­ten­tions of those who use them.

这种报告的模糊性正是为什么阅读大量研究报告的人对证据的可靠性要求如此之高的原因。例如,如果你自己收集定量数据,他们会想知道你是如何收集的。如果你依赖引用,他们会期望这些引用来自一手资料,或者尽可能接近一手资料。而且,他们会要求提供完整的引文和参考文献。这样,如果他们愿意,就可以自行查阅你的资料来源。再次强调,你作为研究者的职业操守至关重要:你的读者希望确保他们能够信任从“外界”信息到他们所读内容的完整信息链,而他们所能获得的最佳保障就是你卓越的专业能力和正直的声誉。

This squishy qual­ity of re­ports of re­ports is why people who read lots of re­search are so de­mand­ing about the re­li­ab­il­ity of evid­ence. For ex­ample, if you col­lect quant­it­at­ive data your­self, they will want to know how you did it. If you de­pend on quo­ta­tions, they will ex­pect them to come from primary sources, or as close to primary sources as you can get. And they will want com­plete cita­tions and a bib­li­o­graphy so that they could, if they chose to, look at your sources them­selves. Again, your ethos as a re­searcher is im­port­ant: your audi­ence wants to know they can trust the com­plete chain of re­ports between what’s “out there” in the world and what they are read­ing, and the best guar­an­tee that they can have is your repu­ta­tion for com­pet­ence and in­teg­rity.

我们生活在一个信息爆炸的时代,其中很多信息的可靠性令人怀疑,而且很多信息并非出自真人之手,而是由计算机“机器人”制造,其目的在于操纵或欺骗我们。信任链条的最后一环就是你,因此务必谨慎选择你使用的数据来源和使用方式。

We live in an age awash in in­form­a­tion, much of it of du­bi­ous re­li­ab­il­ity, and much of it cre­ated—in­creas­ingly not even by other people but by com­pu­ter­ized “bots”—with the in­tent of ma­nip­u­lat­ing or de­ceiv­ing us. The last link in that chain of cred­ib­il­ity is you, so be thought­ful about whose data you use and how you use them.

7.5  评估你的证据

7.5  Eval­u­at­ing Your Evid­ence

一旦你了解了你的研究群体期望的证据类型,你就可以通过问自己五个问题来检验你的证据:你的证据或你对证据的报告是否准确?是否足够精确?是否充分且具有代表性?是否权威?是否清晰易懂?(我们将在第八章添加第六个标准:相关性。)这些问题涉及我们用来评估证据的标准,这些标准不仅适用于学术和专业研究,也适用于日常对话,甚至与孩子交谈。

Once you know the kind of evid­ence your re­search com­munity ex­pects, you can test your evid­ence by ask­ing five ques­tions: Is your evid­ence, or your re­ports of it, ac­cur­ate? Ap­pro­pri­ately pre­cise? Suf­fi­cient and rep­res­ent­at­ive? Au­thor­it­at­ive? Clear and un­der­stand­able? (We’ll add a sixth cri­terion, rel­ev­ance, in chapter 8.) These ques­tions get at cri­teria we ap­ply to eval­u­ate evid­ence not just in aca­demic and pro­fes­sional re­search but also in or­din­ary con­ver­sa­tions, even with chil­dren.

孩子:我需要一个新的书包去上学。声称:你看,这个太小了。证据:

Child: I need a new back­pack for school.claim Look. This one is too small.evid­ence

家长:你今年应该不会比去年带更多东西,而且以前也完全没问题。[也就是说,你的证据可能相关,但我拒绝接受,因为它不准确,而且即使准确,“太少”也不够精确]

Par­ent: You shouldn’t have to carry much more stuff this year than you did last year, and it was per­fectly fine be­fore [i.e., your evid­ence could be rel­ev­ant, but I re­ject it be­cause it is not ac­cur­ate and be­cause even if it were ac­cur­ate, “too small” is not ad­equately pre­cise].

孩子:可是它太旧了,不能上学了。理由:你看它多脏啊——还有这个坏掉的拉链。证据:

Child: But it’s too worn-out for school.reason Look how dirty it is—and this broken zip­per.evid­ence

家长:污渍可以洗掉,拉链只是卡住了。这不足以买个新书包[也就是说,你说的可能没错,但仅仅是污渍和拉链卡住并不足以证明书包不适合上学]。

Par­ent: The dirt will wash off, and the zip­per is just stuck. That’s not enough to buy a new back­pack [i.e., you may be fac­tu­ally cor­rect, but dirt and a stuck zip­per alone are not suf­fi­cient evid­ence that the back­pack is un­fit for school].

孩子:我背疼。原因:你看我身体多僵硬。证据:

Child: It hurts my back.reason Look at how stiff I am.evid­ence

家长:你刚才还好好的[即,你提供的证据不具代表性]

Par­ent: You were fine just a minute ago [i.e., your evid­ence is not rep­res­ent­at­ive].

孩子:大家都觉得我应该买个新的。理由:哈利这么说的。证据

Child: Every­body thinks I should get a new one.reason Harry said so.evid­ence

家长:哈利的意见在这个家里并不重要[即,哈利可能说过那样的话,但他的意见并不具有权威性]

Par­ent: Harry’s opin­ion doesn’t mat­ter in this house [i.e., Harry may have said that, but his opin­ions are not au­thor­it­at­ive].

孩子:它会弄坏我的电脑。理由:你看这个口袋是怎么缝的!证据:

Child: It’s go­ing to break my com­puter.reason Look at how this pocket is stitched!evid­ence

家长:我完全看不出来(即,缝合会导致电脑损坏这一点并不明显)

Par­ent: I don’t see that at all [i.e., it’s not evid­ent that the stitch­ing will lead to a broken com­puter].

在收集证据时,请先根据这些标准进行筛选,然后再将其添加到故事板中。

As you as­semble your evid­ence, screen it for those cri­teria be­fore you add it to your story­board.

7.5.1  你的证据准确吗?

7.5.1  Is Your Evid­ence Ac­cur­ate?

人们常常混淆准确度和精确度。准确度指的是你对证据的报告与证据本身的吻合程度。(如果其他人重新进行你的测量,他们会得到和你一样的数据吗?如果他们核对你引用的小说段落,他们会发现你偶尔抄写错误吗?)精确度指的是对同一数值进行重复测量后,各次测量结果之间的接近程度。(当你重复进行三次实验时,每次测量结果之间的接近程度如何?)两者都很重要。

People of­ten con­fuse ac­cur­acy and pre­ci­sion. Ac­cur­acy refers to how closely your re­port of your evid­ence matches the evid­ence it­self. (If someone else were to redo your meas­ure­ments, would they get the same num­bers you did? If they were to check your quo­ta­tions from a novel, would they dis­cover that you mis­tran­scribed a word here and there?) Pre­ci­sion refers to how close re­peated meas­ure­ments of a value are to each other. (When you ran your ex­per­i­ment three times, how close were your meas­ure­ments to each other?) Both are im­port­ant.

研究论证的受众往往抱持怀疑态度,因此他们会将证据中的错误视为你整体不可靠的标志。无论你的研究论证依赖于在实验室、田野、档案馆收集的信息,还是来自图书馆或网络资源的信息,都应完整清晰地记录下来,并在论文或演示文稿中使用时仔细核对(参见第四章)。注重细节体现了你的严谨。

The audi­ences for re­search ar­gu­ments are pre­dis­posed to be skep­tical, so they re­gard mis­takes in your evid­ence as signs of your broader un­re­li­ab­il­ity. Whether your re­search ar­gu­ment de­pends on in­form­a­tion col­lec­ted in a lab, in the field, in an archive, or from sources you found in the lib­rary or on­line, re­cord that in­form­a­tion com­pletely and clearly, then double-check it when you use it in your pa­per or present­a­tion (see chapter 4). Get­ting the small things right demon­strates your care­ful­ness.

即使证据本身存疑,只要你承认其可靠性,有时也可以使用。事实上,如果你指出一些看似支持​​你论点的证据,但随后又指出其不可靠,这反而会展现出你的谨慎、自省,从而赢得信任。

You can some­times use even ques­tion­able evid­ence, if you ac­know­ledge its du­bi­ous qual­ity. In fact, if you point to evid­ence that seems to sup­port your claim but then re­ject it as un­re­li­able, you show your­self to be cau­tious, self-crit­ical, and thus trust­worthy.

7.5.2  你的证据是否足够精确?

7.5.2  Is Your Evid­ence Ap­pro­pri­ately Pre­cise?

听众也希望你以恰当的精确度陈述证据。如果你说话含糊其辞,他们就会心存疑虑。其目的并非承认合理的各种不确定性,而是为了掩盖含糊不清之处:

Audi­ences also want you to state your evid­ence with ap­pro­pri­ate pre­ci­sion. They be­come wary when you hedge in ways that seem in­ten­ded not to ac­know­ledge le­git­im­ate un­cer­tain­ties but to ex­cuse vague­ness:

美国林务局投入了大量资金来预防森林火灾,但发生大型代价高昂的森林火灾的可能性仍然很高

The Forest Ser­vice has spent a great deal of money to pre­vent forest fires, but there is still a high prob­ab­il­ity of large, costly ones.

多少钱才算大手笔?高概率到底有多大——30 %?80%?什么才算大手笔昂贵注意诸如“一些”、 “大多数” 、 “许多”、“几乎”、“经常”、“通常” 、“一般”等词语。这些词语可以恰当地缩小结论的范围,但如果研究人员没有认真核实数据,它们也可能造成误导。

How much money is a great deal? How prob­able is a high prob­ab­il­ity—30 per­cent? 80 per­cent? What counts as large and costly? Watch for words like some, most, many, al­most, of­ten, usu­ally, fre­quently, gen­er­ally, and so on. Such words can ap­pro­pri­ately limit the breadth of a claim, but they can also fudge it if the re­searcher didn’t work hard enough to get the pre­cise num­bers.

然而,何为恰当的精确度,因领域而异。物理学家以纳秒的几分之一来测量夸克的寿命,因此可接受的误差范围微乎其微。历史学家在估算苏联何时走向不可避免的崩溃时,会以月为单位进行估计。古生物学家对新发现物种的年代测定,误差可能在数万年左右。按照各自领域的标准,这三种方法都算是恰当的精确度。(证据也可能过于精确。只有鲁莽的历史学家才会断言苏联在1987年8月18日下午2点13分走向不可避免的崩溃。)

What counts as ap­pro­pri­ately pre­cise, how­ever, dif­fers by field. A phys­i­cist meas­ures the life of quarks in frac­tions of a nano­second, so the tol­er­able mar­gin of er­ror is van­ish­ingly small. A his­tor­ian gauging when the So­viet Union reached the point of in­ev­it­able col­lapse would es­tim­ate it in months. A pa­le­on­to­lo­gist might date a newly dis­covered spe­cies give or take tens of thou­sands of years. Ac­cord­ing to the stand­ards of their fields, all three are ap­pro­pri­ately pre­cise. (Evid­ence can also be too pre­cise. Only a fool­hardy his­tor­ian would as­sert that the So­viet Union reached its point of in­ev­it­able col­lapse at 2:13 p.m. on Au­gust 18, 1987.)

7.5.3  你的证据是否充分且具有代表性?

7.5.3  Is Your Evid­ence Suf­fi­cient and Rep­res­ent­at­ive?

初学者通常提供的证据太少。他们认为只需引用一句话、一个数字或一次个人经历就能证明某个论点(尽管有时只需要一条证据就足以反驳它)。例如:

Be­gin­ners typ­ic­ally of­fer too little evid­ence. They think they prove a claim with one quo­ta­tion, one num­ber, one per­sonal ex­per­i­ence (though some­times only one bit of evid­ence is suf­fi­cient to dis­prove it). For ex­ample:

莎士比亚一定是位女权主义者,因为《第十二夜》《无事生非》中的女性角色都非常自信。

Shakespeare must have been a fem­in­ist be­cause the wo­men in Twelfth Night and Much Ado about Noth­ing are so self-con­fid­ent.

观众需要更多信息才能接受如此重大的论断。

An audi­ence needs more than that to ac­cept such a sig­ni­fic­ant claim.

即使你提供大量证据,你的听众仍然会期望这些证据能够代表所有可获取的证据类型。莎士比亚一两部戏剧中的女性角色并不能代表他笔下的所有女性角色,正如莎士比亚的作品并不能代表伊丽莎白时代的所有戏剧一样。当你的证据样本量很小时,听众尤其会保持警惕。从大量数据中,例如调查数据,得出结果。无论何时使用抽样数据,不仅数据必须具有代表性,而且还必须证明这一点。

Even if you of­fer lots of evid­ence, your audi­ence will still ex­pect it to be rep­res­ent­at­ive of the full range of vari­ation in what’s avail­able. The wo­men in one or two Shakespearean plays do not rep­res­ent all his wo­men, any more than Shakespeare rep­res­ents all Eliza­bethan drama. Audi­ences are es­pe­cially wary when your evid­ence is a small sample from a large body of data, as in sur­veys. Whenever you use sampled data, not only must your data be rep­res­ent­at­ive, but you must show that it is.

证据有时会因轶事性质而受到质疑。轶事是对个人经历或事件的简短描述。轶事证据并非通过系统性的研究方法收集,而是随意地通过个人经验获得。它可能具有代表性,但也可能不具有代表性。当然,人们往往容易被故事打动,因此轶事证据有时比统计数据更具说服力。正是这些具有说服力的例子、完美的案例研究或例外证明规则的例子,使得以轶事为论据既有力又充满风险。

Evid­ence is some­times ques­tioned for be­ing an­ec­dotal. An an­ec­dote is a short re­port of a per­sonal ex­per­i­ence or epis­ode. An­ec­dotal evid­ence is evid­ence gathered not sys­tem­at­ic­ally by ap­ply­ing a re­search method but ar­bit­rar­ily through per­sonal ex­per­i­ence. It might be rep­res­ent­at­ive but, then again, it might not. Of course, people tend to be moved by stor­ies, so an­ec­dotal evid­ence can some­times be per­suas­ive in ways that stat­ist­ics are not. The very per­suas­ive­ness of the telling ex­ample, the per­fect case study, or the ex­cep­tion that proves the rule makes ar­gu­ment by an­ec­dote power­ful but also risky.

与之相关的指控是“断章取义” 即只呈现那些支持某种理由和主张的证据,而忽略其他不相关的证据。这种指控对研究人员来说是最具破坏性的,因为它不仅意味着粗心大意,还意味着不诚实。为了避免这种指控,你必须证明你已经考虑了所有可用的证据。

A re­lated charge is that of cherry-pick­ing, of present­ing only those bits of evid­ence that sup­port a reason and claim and ig­nor­ing avail­able pieces of evid­ence that don’t. This charge is one of the most dev­ast­at­ing a re­searcher can face be­cause it im­plies not just care­less­ness but dis­hon­esty. To avoid it, you must show that you have con­sidered all of the evid­ence avail­able to you.

7.5.4  你的证据是否具有权威性?

7.5.4  Is Your Evid­ence Au­thor­it­at­ive?

一般来说,研究人员会根据信息来源的严谨性和客观性来判断其权威程度。因此,不仅要考虑信息来源的内容,还要考虑其类型。例如,大多数科学家会接受美国疾病控制与预防中心(CDC)提供的病毒传播数据,即使考虑到其中可能存在误差(即便一些怀疑论者质疑CDC的客观性,并认为其指导意见受到政治因素的影响)。然而,很少有人会信任来自维基百科的同一主题的数据,或者在研究报告中引用维基百科,因为在他们所属的研究群体中,维基百科并不被视为权威来源。

In gen­eral, re­search­ers as­sign de­grees of au­thor­ity to sources based on their repu­ta­tion for rigor and ob­jectiv­ity. That’s why it’s im­port­ant to con­sider not just what a source says but also what kind of source it is. For ex­ample, most sci­ent­ists would ac­cept data on the trans­mis­sion of vir­uses ob­tained from the US Cen­ters for Dis­ease Con­trol as cred­ible, even al­low­ing for the pos­sib­il­ity of er­ror (and even if some skep­tics doubt the CDC’s ob­jectiv­ity and see its guid­ance as be­ing tain­ted by polit­ics). How­ever, few would trust data on the same topic taken from Wiki­pe­dia—or cite Wiki­pe­dia in a re­search re­port—be­cause in the re­search com­munit­ies to which they be­long, Wiki­pe­dia is not re­garded as au­thor­it­at­ive.

这个例子引出了一个重要的观点:在研究论证中,对信息来源权威性的判断通常是由研究群体而非个人做出的。这些判断以同行评审流程为支撑,在同行评审过程中,研究群体的成员会对研究成果进行审查。论点在发表之前,以及支持学术和科学研究并传播其成果的机构和组织的信誉,都取决于这些机构和组织的信誉:大学和大学出版社、像美国疾病控制与预防中心这样的政府组织,甚至拥有许多学术期刊和数据库的商业企业。

This ex­ample raises an im­port­ant point: In re­search ar­gu­ments, judg­ments about the au­thor­ity of sources are typ­ic­ally made by re­search com­munit­ies, not in­di­vidu­als. They are backed by pro­cesses of peer re­view, in which mem­bers of a re­search com­munity vet re­search ar­gu­ments be­fore they are pub­lished, and by the cred­ib­il­ity of the in­sti­tu­tions and or­gan­iz­a­tions that sup­port schol­arly and sci­entific re­search and propag­ate its res­ults: uni­ver­sit­ies and uni­ver­sity presses, gov­ern­mental or­gan­iz­a­tions such as the CDC, even com­mer­cial en­ter­prises such as those that own many aca­demic journ­als and data­bases.

7.5.5  你的证据是否清晰易懂?

7.5.5  Is Your Evid­ence Clear and Un­der­stand­able?

你的证据或许准确、精确、充分、具有代表性且权威,但如果听众觉得晦涩难懂,无法理解其如何支撑你的论点,那么你提供的证据就形同虚设。无论你提供的是引文、量化数据还是视觉证据,务必确保听众能够注意到你想让他们注意到的内容。

Your evid­ence may be ac­cur­ate, pre­cise, suf­fi­cient and rep­res­ent­at­ive, and au­thor­it­at­ive, but if your audi­ence finds it per­plex­ing, if they can’t un­der­stand how it sup­ports your ar­gu­ment, then you might as well have offered no evid­ence at all. Whether you are of­fer­ing quo­ta­tions, quant­it­at­ive data, or visual evid­ence, be sure your audi­ence will no­tice in it what you want them to no­tice.

例如,引文很少能“不言自明”;你需要解释和解读它们,以确保你的听众能够理解对你来说可能不言而喻的含义。这里,关于《哈姆雷特》的一个论断是基于以下引文的证据:

Quo­ta­tions, for in­stance, rarely “speak for them­selves”; you need to ex­plain and in­ter­pret them to be sure your audi­ence gets a con­nec­tion that may be self-evid­ent to you. Here, a claim about Ham­let is based on the evid­ence of the quo­ta­tion that fol­lows:

当哈姆雷特撞见叔叔克劳狄斯正在祈祷时,他表现出冷静的理性

现在我可以动手杀了他吗?现在他正在祈祷。

现在我不会了。于是,我就去了天堂。

因此,我的仇终于报了……(哈姆雷特停顿片刻,沉思)

但是这个恶棍杀害了我的父亲,为此,

我,他唯一的儿子,也犯下了同样的罪行。

升入天堂。

为什么?这是雇佣和薪酬问题,不是报复。(3.3)证据报告

When Ham­let comes upon his uncle, Claudius, at prayer, he demon­strates cool ra­tion­al­ity:claim

Now might I do it [kill him] pat, now ’a is a-pray­ing,

And now I’ll do’t. And so ’a goes to heaven,

And so am I re­veng’d. . . . [Ham­let pauses to think]

[But this] vil­lain kills my father, and for that,

I, his sole son, do this same vil­lain send

To heaven.

Why, this is hire and salary, not re­venge. (3.3)re­port of evid­ence

但这段引文如何支持这一论点尚不明确,因为其中没有任何内容明确提及哈姆雷特的理性。相比之下,请比较以下内容:

But it’s not clear how that quo­ta­tion sup­ports the claim be­cause noth­ing in it ex­pli­citly refers to Ham­let’s ra­tion­al­ity. In con­trast, com­pare this:

当哈姆雷特撞见叔叔克劳狄斯正在祈祷时,他表现出了冷静的理性。他冲动 地想要杀死克劳狄斯,但随即停下来思考——如果趁克劳狄斯祈祷时杀了他,他的灵魂就能升入天堂,但他想让克劳狄斯下地狱,所以他冷静地决定稍后再杀他:这是出于理性。

现在我可以动手了吗(杀了他)?拍拍手……证据报告

When Ham­let comes upon his uncle, Claudius, at prayer, he demon­strates cool ra­tion­al­ity.claim He im­puls­ively wants to kill Claudius but pauses to re­flect—if he kills Claudius while pray­ing, he will send his soul to heaven, but he wants Claudius damned to hell, so he coolly de­cides to kill him later:reason

Now might I do it [kill him] pat, . . .re­port of evid­ence

现在我们明白其中的联系了。

Now we see the con­nec­tion.

同样的原则也适用于呈现定量数据或可视化图像。以下是一家咨询公司向客户展示的案例。该客户是一家全球零售商,他们想知道其大销量门店和小销量门店哪家更有增长潜力。咨询公司的研究表明,虽然大销量门店目前的销售额更高,但小销量门店蕴藏着更好的增长机会。报告的初稿包含以下图表:

The same prin­ciple ap­plies when you present quant­it­at­ive data or visual im­ages. Here’s an ex­ample from a con­sult­ing firm’s present­a­tion to a cli­ent. The cli­ent, a global re­tailer, wanted to know whether its large-volume or small-volume stores had greater po­ten­tial for growth. The con­sult­ing firm’s re­search showed that while the large-volume stores cur­rently had more sales, its smal­ler-volume stores offered a bet­ter growth op­por­tun­ity. The first ver­sion of the re­port in­cluded this chart:

这是一个设计糟糕的堆叠式垂直条形图示例,未能展现数据中的重要关系。该条形图由两列组成。左侧一列代表2022财年的销售额,总计5.6亿美元。右侧一列代表增长机会,总计4.7亿美元。两列高度相同。纵轴表示2022财年不同门店规模类别的销售额和增长机会。横轴表示2022财年的销售额和增长机会,范围从0%到100%,以10%为增量。每列被分为5个部分,填充模式各不相同。右侧的图例解释了不同的填充模式,这些模式代表了不同门店规模对应的年销售额。图中用线条连接了每种门店规模对应的2022财年销售额和增长机会。

但这张图表掩盖了重点,因为它强调的是总销售额和总商机,而不是不同规模门店的相对销售额和商机。在报告的最终版本中,咨询公司将原图表拆分为两张,以便更好地进行比较:

But that chart ob­scures its point be­cause it em­phas­izes total sales and total op­por­tun­ity, not the re­l­at­ive sales and op­por­tun­ity of dif­fer­ent-sized stores. In the fi­nal ver­sion of the re­port, the con­sult­ing firm broke the ori­ginal chart into two, to bet­ter show the com­par­ison:

这两张竖条形图展示了2022财年的销售额和增长机会数据。在两张图中,横轴表示按年销售额(单位:百万美元)划分的5个门店规模类别,纵轴为百分比,范围从0%到50%,以10%为增量。第一张图展示了增长机会。该图清晰地表明,销售额较小的门店比销售额较大的门店拥有更大的增长机会。第二张图展示了2022财年的销售额。该图清晰地表明,销售额较大的门店占总销售额的比例更高。

现在,由于这两个图表共享一个共同的水平轴,我们可以看到这种关系:随着商店规模的增加,即使 2022 财年的销售额上升,预期的增长机会也会下降。

Now, be­cause both charts share a com­mon ho­ri­zontal axis, we can see the re­la­tion­ship: as store size in­creases, the an­ti­cip­ated growth op­por­tun­ity goes down even though fiscal-year sales for 2022 go up.

图像也同样如此。如果观看者没有注意到研究者希望他们注意到的图像内容,他们可能就不会将该图像视为证据。因此,研究者有时会对图像进行增强处理,以突出或展现某些特征。但务必小心,不要让你的“增强”演变成捏造证据。这很容易导致错误的判断。

The same holds for im­ages. If view­ers don’t no­tice in an im­age what a re­searcher wants them to, they might not un­der­stand that im­age as evid­ence. For this reason, re­search­ers some­times en­hance their im­ages to high­light or bring out cer­tain fea­tures. But be care­ful that your “en­hance­ments” don’t amount to fab­ric­at­ing evid­ence. It can be a slip­pery slope.

▶ 小贴士:收集证据的同时评估证据质量

▶ Quick Tip: As­sess Your Evid­ence as You Gather It

第四章中,我们鼓励你们在笔记中积极运用各种资料,不仅要包含引文或书目信息,还要包含你们自己的想法和感受(参见4.3-4.5 。这一点在记录可能用作证据的数据或信息时尤为重要,因为构成论证核心的三个要素——论点、理由和证据——中,只有证据并非由你们自己构建。记住,论点是你们对自身观点的陈述,理由是支持这些观点的陈述。但证据并非陈述(尽管你们可能会用陈述来呈现证据);它是支撑其他陈述的数据或信息(参见5.27.2 )。你们需要确保证据记录准确无误,同时也需要理解其价值和局限性。因此,在收集证据的过程中,就要开始评估它。思考一下你们对证据的信任程度以及可以如何利用它。记录你对证据可靠性的判断,你对证据的任何疑虑,甚至是它所暗示的论证思路(你为什么选择记录这些数字引文?) 。让本章的问题引导你(参见7.5 )。在收集证据的过程中对其进行评估,至少在三个方面对你有所帮助:首先,它可以避免你陷入机械地记录越来越多的数据和信息的陷阱,这实际上是一种拖延(如果你一直记笔记,就会推迟撰写论文的繁重工作)。其次,它能让你之后更严谨地评估证据,因为你已经有了最初的反应。最后,它能让你尽早思考最终要提出的论点。

In chapter 4, we en­cour­aged you to en­gage sources act­ively in your notes, to in­clude in them not just quo­ta­tions or bib­li­o­graphic in­form­a­tion but your own thoughts and re­ac­tions (see 4.34.5). Do­ing that is es­pe­cially im­port­ant when you are re­cord­ing data or in­form­a­tion that you might use as evid­ence be­cause of the three ele­ments that make up your ar­gu­ment’s core—a claim, reas­ons, and evid­ence—your evid­ence is the only one that you don’t for­mu­late your­self. Re­mem­ber, your claims are state­ments of your ideas, and your reas­ons are state­ments that sup­port them. But your evid­ence isn’t a state­ment (al­though you might make state­ments to re­port it); it’s the data or in­form­a­tion on which those other state­ments are based (see 5.2 and 7.2). You need to know that it has been re­cor­ded ac­cur­ately, but you also need to un­der­stand its value and lim­it­a­tions. So be­gin as­sess­ing it as you gather it. Con­sider how far you can trust it and what you might do with it. Note your sense of its re­li­ab­il­ity, any con­cerns you have about it, even lines of ar­gu­ment it sug­gests (Why did you choose to re­cord those num­bers or that quo­ta­tion?). Let the ques­tions in this chapter guide you (see 7.5). As­sess­ing your evid­ence as you gather it will help you in at least three ways: It will pro­tect you from the trap of mech­an­ic­ally re­cord­ing more and more and more data and in­form­a­tion, which can be a kind of pro­cras­tin­a­tion (if you keep tak­ing notes, you can put off the hard work of draft­ing). It will en­able you to eval­u­ate your evid­ence more rig­or­ously later be­cause you’ll have your ini­tial re­ac­tions to it. And it will get you think­ing early about the ar­gu­ment you will even­tu­ally make.

8份逮捕令

8  War­rants

论据是连接理由和论点的一般原则。本章将解释何时以及如何使用论据。所有研究论证都包含论据,正如它们包含论点、理由和证据一样。但与这些核心要素不同,论据通常不被明确指出。一般来说,只有当听众不陈述论据就无法理解你的论点,或者你预期听众会质疑你的推理时,才应该陈述论据。

War­rants are gen­eral prin­ciples that con­nect reas­ons to claims. This chapter ex­plains when and how to use them. All re­search ar­gu­ments have war­rants, just as they have claims, reas­ons, and evid­ence. But un­like these core ele­ments, war­rants are of­ten left un­stated. In gen­eral, you should state your war­rants only when your audi­ence will not un­der­stand your ar­gu­ment oth­er­wise or when you ex­pect your audi­ence to chal­lenge your reas­on­ing.

请考虑以下论点:

Con­sider this ar­gu­ment:

日本面临生活水平下降的指责,因为其生育率仅为1.3且仍在

Ja­pan faces a de­clin­ing stand­ard of liv­ingclaim be­cause its fer­til­ity rate is only 1.3 and fall­ing.reason

有人回应道:

Someone re­sponds:

你说的日本生育率确实如此,但我不太明白为什么这意味着日本的生活水平会下降。这怎么可能呢?

Well, you’re right about Ja­pan’s fer­til­ity rate, but I don’t see why that means Ja­pan’s stand­ard of liv­ing will de­cline. How does that fol­low?

如果你要提出这样的论点,你会如何回答?提供日本生育率的证据并无帮助,因为问题不在于理由本身的真假,而在于理由如何支撑你的论点。这个问题触及了论证的第四个也是最抽象的要素:论证的依据。论证依据是连接理由和论点的普遍原则。它们至关重要,因为它们解释或授权了使论证成为可能的推理过程。理解论证依据对你来说很重要,因为你可能不仅会面临关于理由真假的问题,还会面临关于其相关性的问题。在这种情况下,你需要能够解释的不仅是你的理由和证据是什么,还有它们为什么支持你的论点(这可能比听起来要难)。归根结底,每一个关于论证依据的问题都是关于你信念基础的问题:它挑战你认识到,你的论证之所以有意义,仅仅是因为你接受了某些原则(你的信念)。(保证书)并承认,当持有不同原则的人考虑你的理由和证据时,他们可能会得出与你不同的结论,或者根本无法得出任何结论。

If you were mak­ing that ar­gu­ment, how would you an­swer? Of­fer­ing evid­ence of Ja­pan’s fer­til­ity rate wouldn’t help be­cause the ques­tion is not about the truth of the reason it­self but about how it sup­ports the claim. The ques­tion gets at the fourth and most ab­stract ele­ment of an ar­gu­ment: its war­rants. War­rants are gen­eral prin­ciples that con­nect reas­ons to claims. They are es­sen­tial be­cause they ex­plain or au­thor­ize the reas­on­ing that makes ar­gu­ments pos­sible. They are im­port­ant for you to un­der­stand be­cause you may face ques­tions not just about the truth of a reason but about its rel­ev­ance as well. In that case, you need to be able to ex­plain not just what your reas­ons and evid­ence are, but why they sup­port your claim (which can be harder than it sounds). Every ques­tion about your war­rants is, ul­ti­mately, a ques­tion about the basis of your be­liefs: it chal­lenges you to re­cog­nize that your ar­gu­ment makes sense only be­cause you ac­cept cer­tain prin­ciples (your war­rants) and to ac­know­ledge that when oth­ers who hold dif­fer­ent prin­ciples con­sider your reas­ons and evid­ence, they may ar­rive at dif­fer­ent con­clu­sions than you did or at no con­clu­sions at all.

幸运的是,大多数时候,我们无需进行这种哲学思考。这是因为我们的大部分权利都来自我们参与的社群,不仅包括我们的研究和专业社群,还包括我们的社交和家庭群体、政治和宗教信仰,甚至我们的文化。

Luck­ily, most of the time, we are spared from such philo­soph­iz­ing. That’s be­cause most of our war­rants are given to us by the com­munit­ies in which we par­ti­cip­ate, in­clud­ing not just our re­search and pro­fes­sional com­munit­ies but also our so­cial and fa­milial groups, polit­ical and re­li­gious af­fil­i­ations, and even our cul­tures.

实际上,基本原则是:只有当你的听众持有不同的论据、不陈述论据就无法理解你的推理,或者可能质疑你的推理时,才需要陈述你的论据。当为某个领域的专家辩护时,你可以省略大部分论据,因为这些专家通常会认为这些论据是理所当然的。

As a prac­tical mat­ter, the ba­sic prin­ciple is this: state your war­rants only if your audi­ence holds dif­fer­ent ones, will not be able to un­der­stand your reas­on­ing un­less you do, or may chal­lenge your reas­on­ing. When mak­ing ar­gu­ments for ex­perts in a field, you can leave most of your war­rants un­stated be­cause those ex­perts will usu­ally take them for gran­ted.

8.1  日常推理中的论证

8.1  War­rants in Every­day Reas­on­ing

虽然“论据”的概念很抽象,但我们却时时刻刻都在依赖它。当我们引用谚语来佐证自己的观点时,就能很容易地理解它的存在。这是因为谚语是人人都熟悉的文化论据。例如,有人会说:

While the concept of war­rants is ab­stract, we rely on them all the time. We un­der­stand them eas­ily enough when we of­fer pro­verbs to jus­tify our reas­on­ing. That’s be­cause pro­verbs are cul­tural war­rants that we all know. For ex­ample, someone says:

我听说联邦调查局一直在讯问市长的幕僚。原因:市长肯定牵涉到什么不正当的勾当

I hear the FBI has been ques­tion­ing the mayor’s staff.reason The mayor must be in­volved in some­thing crooked.claim

另一个人可能会反驳说:“你说得对。联邦调查局确实讯问了市长的幕僚,但这又怎么能说明市长本人腐败呢?”为了解释得出这个结论的逻辑,第一个人可能会引用一句谚语:“无风不起浪”。也就是说,当我们看到一些不祥之兆时,就可以推断出事情确实出了问题。

An­other per­son might ob­ject, You’re right. The FBI has been ques­tion­ing the mayor’s staff, but why does that mean the mayor is crooked? To ex­plain the reas­on­ing that led to that con­clu­sion, the first per­son might of­fer the pro­verb, Well, where there’s smoke, there’s fire. That is, when we see a sign of some­thing wrong, we can in­fer that some­thing is in fact wrong.

推理过程如下。大多数谚语都包含两个截然不同的部分:情况(无风不起浪)及其后果(……必有大事发生)。如果某种情况通常蕴含某种后果,那么我们就可以依靠这种联系来推断具体案例。就“无风不起浪”这句谚语以及FBI和市长之间的事件而言,推理过程如下:

The reas­on­ing works like this. Most pro­verbs have two dis­tinct parts: a cir­cum­stance (Where there’s smoke . . .) and its con­sequence (. . . there’s fire). If a cir­cum­stance im­plies a con­sequence in gen­eral, then we can rely on that con­nec­tion to li­cense our in­fer­ences in spe­cific in­stances. In the case of the pro­verb about smoke and fire and that situ­ation with the FBI and the mayor, the reas­on­ing looks like this:

该图描绘了一般情况与其后果之间的关系,并由此推断出特定情况(原因)及其后果(主张)。图的顶部写着“这一一般情况必然导致这一一般后果”,底部写着“这一特定情况使我们能够推断出这一特定后果”。中间左侧写着“这是一个很好的例子”,旁边配有一组箭头,一个向下,一个向上,连接“一般情况”和“特定情况”。中间右侧写着“这是一个很好的例子”,旁边配有一组箭头,一个向下,一个向上,连接“一般后果”和“特定后果”。该图以“存在不正当行为的迹象”为例说明一般情况,以“不正当行为确实存在”为例说明一般后果。它以“FBI一直在讯问市长的工作人员”这一具体情况为例,以“市长一定参与了某些不正当的勾当”这一具体结果为例,两者之间用“因此”连接。

我们用谚语来佐证许多日常推理:因果关系(欲速则不达);行为准则(三思而后行);可靠的推断(一燕不成夏)。但谚语并非我们日常生活中唯一使用论据的例子。我们无处不在地使用论据:体育运动中(防守赢得冠军);烹饪中(只在月份名称中带有“r”的月份供应牡蛎);定义中(数只能被它本身和1整除);甚至在研究中(当受众发现某个证据有误时,他们就会对其他证据产生怀疑)

We use pro­verbs to jus­tify many kinds of every­day reas­on­ing: cause and ef­fect (Haste makes waste); rules of be­ha­vior (Look be­fore you leap); re­li­able in­fer­ence (One swal­low does not a sum­mer make). But such pro­verbs are not our only ex­amples of every­day war­rants. We use war­rants every­where: in sports (De­fense wins cham­pi­on­ships); in cook­ing (Serve oysters only in months with an “r”); in defin­i­tions (A prime num­ber can be di­vided only by it­self and one); even in re­search (When an audi­ence finds an er­ror in one bit of evid­ence, they dis­trust the rest).

8.2  研究论证中的证据

8.2  War­rants in Re­search Ar­gu­ments

在研究人员和其他专业人士的专业论证中,论证工作方式完全相同,但在某些方面有所不同,这可能会使它们难以管理,特别是对于那些刚接触该领域的人来说。

In the spe­cial­ized ar­gu­ments of re­search­ers and other pro­fes­sion­als, war­rants work in ex­actly the same way, but they dif­fer in some re­spects that can make them dif­fi­cult to man­age, es­pe­cially for those new to a field.

首先,研究论证中的依据并非总是我们普遍认同的常识;它们通常是特定研究领域特有的推理原则。新研究人员需要时间来掌握其研究领域的依据——事实上,这占据了很大一部分时间。学习像生物学家、历史学家、医生等等那样思考意味着什么。

First, the war­rants in re­search ar­gu­ments aren’t al­ways com­mon­places we share; they are of­ten spe­cial­ized prin­ciples of reas­on­ing that be­long to par­tic­u­lar re­search com­munit­ies. It just takes time for new re­search­ers to grasp the war­rants of their fields—in fact, that’s much of what it means to learn to think like a bio­lo­gist, a his­tor­ian, a phys­i­cian, and so on.

其次,专家在与其他专家交流时很少明确说明自己的资质,因为他们可以理所当然地认为其他专家已经了解这些资质。(把显而易见的资质说出来可能会显得居高临下,或者更糟的是,会暴露​​所谓的专家其实根本不是专家。)

Second, ex­perts rarely state their war­rants ex­pli­citly when they ad­dress their fel­low spe­cial­ists be­cause they can safely as­sume their fel­low spe­cial­ists already know them. (To state war­rants that should be ob­vi­ous could seem con­des­cend­ing or—worse—un­mask a pur­por­ted ex­pert as no ex­pert at all.)

虽然这种不明确列出既定论据的做法对研究界大有裨益,但识别出其中的论据也同样重要,这不仅对评估现有论证的人有帮助,对刚刚入门的新手也同样重要。假设现有证据支持该论证,生物学家会接受以下论点:

While this prac­tice of leav­ing ac­cep­ted war­rants un­stated serves re­search com­munit­ies well, it is also use­ful to be able to identify war­rants at work, both for those as­sess­ing ar­gu­ments they’ve been offered and for novices just learn­ing their fields. As­sum­ing the avail­able evid­ence sup­ports the reason, bio­lo­gists would ac­cept this ar­gu­ment:

有人声称,鲸鱼与河马的亲缘关系比与牛的亲缘关系更近,因为它与河马的DNA更相似。理由

A whale is more closely re­lated to a hip­po­pot­amus than to a cowclaim be­cause it shares more DNA with a hip­po­pot­amus.reason

没有哪个生物学家会问:“是什么让DNA与亲缘关系的测定相关?”因此,没有哪个生物学家在为其他生物学家撰写文章时会提供理由来回答这个问题。然而,如果一个非生物学家问了这个问题,生物学家就会给出其他生物学家习以为常的理由:

No bio­lo­gist would ask, What makes DNA rel­ev­ant to meas­ur­ing re­la­tion­ship? So no bio­lo­gist writ­ing for fel­low bio­lo­gists would of­fer a war­rant an­swer­ing that ques­tion. If, how­ever, a non-bio­lo­gist asked that ques­tion, the bio­lo­gist would an­swer with a war­rant other bio­lo­gists take for gran­ted:

当一个物种与另一个物种共享的DNA比与另一个物种共享的DNA更多时,我们推断它与前者亲缘

When a spe­cies shares more DNA with one spe­cies than it does with an­other,cir­cum­stance we in­fer that it is more closely re­lated to the first.con­sequence

当然,生物学家可能还需要解释这一论证的依据。关键在于:论证是否被明确提出,不仅取决于论点本身,还取决于受众。研究群体成员只有在与群体外人士交流或受到质疑时,才会阐述那些对其他成员而言显而易见的原则。

Of course, the bio­lo­gist would prob­ably then have to ex­plain that war­rant as well. The point is this: whether or not a war­rant gets stated ex­pli­citly de­pends not only on the ar­gu­ment but also on the audi­ence. Mem­bers of a re­search com­munity state prin­ciples that are ob­vi­ous to other mem­bers only when they com­mu­nic­ate with those out­side their com­munity—or when chal­lenged.

第三,研究群体所掌握的专业授权书通常以简略的方式表述,将背景和后果压缩开来。在大多数谚语中,这两部分是分开的:无风不起浪。 但我们也可以将这两部分压缩成一句简短的陈述:无风不起浪。这在谚语中很少见,但专家们却经常这样做。

Third, the spe­cial­ized war­rants be­long­ing to re­search com­munit­ies are of­ten stated in ways that com­press their cir­cum­stances and con­sequences. In most pro­verbs, these parts are dis­tinct: Where there’s smoke,cir­cum­stance there’s fire.con­sequence But we can also com­press those two parts into one short state­ment: Smoke means fire. That’s some­thing we rarely do with pro­verbs but that ex­perts do of­ten:

共享的DNA是衡量物种间亲缘关系的指标。

Shared DNA is the meas­ure of the re­la­tion­ship between spe­cies.

这样表述,我们生物学家的论证并没有明确区分情况及其后果,但我们可以做到。为了清晰起见,我们将论证以最明确的形式表述:当 X 发生时,则 Y 发生。

Phrased this way, our bio­lo­gist’s war­rant doesn’t ex­pli­citly dis­tin­guish a cir­cum­stance from its con­sequence, but we can. For pur­poses of clar­ity, we’ll state war­rants in their most ex­pli­cit form: When X, then Y.

以下是关于日本经济前景的论点:

Here again is that ar­gu­ment about Ja­pan’s eco­nomic fu­ture:

日本面临生活水平下降的指责,因为其生育率仅为1.3且仍在

Ja­pan faces a de­clin­ing stand­ard of liv­ingclaim be­cause its fer­til­ity rate is only 1.3 and fall­ing.reason

如果有人反对该理由似乎论点无关,那么提出论点的人必须提供证据来证明这种联系的合理性:

If someone ob­jects that the reason seems ir­rel­ev­ant to the claim, the per­son mak­ing the ar­gu­ment would have to of­fer a war­rant to jus­tify the con­nec­tion:

当一个国家的劳动力萎缩时,经济前景通常

When a na­tion’s labor force shrinks,gen­eral cir­cum­stance its eco­nomic fu­ture is grim.gen­eral con­sequence

情况和结果都必须比具体的原因和主张更具普遍性。从视觉上看,这种逻辑如下所示:

Both the cir­cum­stance and con­sequence have to be more gen­eral than the spe­cific reason and claim. Visu­ally, that lo­gic looks like this:

该图描绘了一般情况及其结果之间的关系,并由此推断出特定情况(原因)及其结果(主张)。图的顶部写着“这一一般情况蕴含着这一一般结果”,底部写着“这一特定情况使我们能够推断出这一特定结果”。中间左侧的文字“这是一个很好的例子”与一组箭头相连,一组箭头向下,一组箭头向上,连接着“一般情况”和“特定情况”。中间右侧的文字“这是一个很好的例子”也与一组箭头相连,一组箭头向下,一组箭头向上,连接着“一般结果”和“特定结果”。该图以“当一个国家的劳动力萎缩时”为例来说明一般情况,并以“其经济前景黯淡”为例来说明一般结果。它以“日本生育率仅为 1.3 且正在下降”这一具体原因为例,以“日本面临生活水平下降”这一具体结果为例,两者之间用“因此”连接。

日常推理和专业推理的模式是一样的。

The pat­tern is the same in every­day and spe­cial­ized reas­on­ing.

8.3  测试授权

8.3  Test­ing War­rants

观众对证据的质疑方式是可以预见的。请看以下论点:

Audi­ences chal­lenge war­rants in pre­dict­able ways. Con­sider this ar­gu­ment:

十八世纪初的新英格兰,除了最富裕的农民之外,其他农民拥有钟表可能性似乎不大,因为农民的遗嘱中很少提及钟表。理由,对1700年至1750年间马萨诸塞州四个县存档的124份此类遗嘱进行审查后发现,只有14%的遗嘱提到了任何类型的钟表。

It seems un­likely that in early eight­eenth-cen­tury New Eng­land, many farm­ers other than the most af­flu­ent owned a clockclaim be­cause clocks are rarely men­tioned in farm­ers’ wills.reason A re­view of 124 such wills filed in four Mas­sachu­setts counties between 1700 and 1750 shows that only 14 per­cent men­tion a clock of any sort.re­port of evid­ence

这种说法很可能会受到那些信仰受到挑战的人的质疑。即使他们接受理由属实——即遗嘱中确实很少提及钟表——他们仍然可能会反对:但我看不出这如何能作为认为很少有农民拥有钟表的理由。这无关紧要。如果提出这种论点的历史学家预料到会有人反对,那么他可能会在提出论点时先说明反对的理由:

Such a claim is likely to be ques­tioned by those whose be­liefs it chal­lenges. Even if they ac­cept that the reason is true—that clocks were in fact rarely men­tioned in wills—they may still ob­ject: But I don’t see how that counts as a reason to be­lieve that few farm­ers owned clocks. It’s ir­rel­ev­ant. If a his­tor­ian mak­ing this ar­gu­ment an­ti­cip­ated that ob­jec­tion, that his­tor­ian might in­tro­duce it with its war­rant:

十八世纪初的新英格兰,遗嘱会列出贵重的家居用品,因此,如果遗嘱中没有提及某件物品,则说明立遗嘱人并不拥有该物品因此,似乎不太可能……

In early eight­eenth-cen­tury New Eng­land, wills lis­ted valu­able house­hold ob­jects, so when a will fails to men­tion such an ob­ject, the test­ator did not own one.war­rant It there­fore seems un­likely that . . .claim

需要注意的是,这个论点还依赖于第二个前提:适用于马萨诸塞州农民的情况也适用于新英格兰地区更广泛的农民群体。但如果历史学家认为这一点不会受到质疑,那么它就可以不被提及。

Note that this ar­gu­ment de­pends on a second war­rant as well: that what’s true of farm­ers in Mas­sachu­setts is true of farm­ers in New Eng­land more broadly. But if the his­tor­ian be­lieves it won’t be ques­tioned, it can go un­stated.

一份成功的搜查令必须满足五个条件。也就是说,被搜查人员必须能够对以下问题回答“是”:

A suc­cess­ful war­rant must meet five con­di­tions. That is, an audi­ence must be able to say “yes” to the fol­low­ing ques­tions:

  1. 1. 这个搜查令合理吗?
  2. 1. Is that war­rant reas­on­able?
  3. 2. 是否足够有限?
  4. 2. Is it suf­fi­ciently lim­ited?
  5. 3. 它是否优于任何竞争性认股权证?
  6. 3. Is it su­per­ior to any com­pet­ing war­rants?
  7. 4. 它是否适用于该领域?
  8. 4. Is it ap­pro­pri­ate to this field?
  9. 5. 它是否能够涵盖理由和索赔?
  10. 5. Is it able to cover the reason and claim?

8.3.1  你的搜查令合理吗?

8.3.1  Is Your War­rant Reas­on­able?

当受众能够接受其结果源于具体情况时,该论证就显得合理。如果你的受众一开始就不接受你的论证,那么你就必须说服他们接受它。将其视为自身论证中的一个主张,并由其自身的理由和证据加以支持:

A war­rant seems reas­on­able when an audi­ence can ac­cept that its con­sequence fol­lows from its cir­cum­stance. If your audi­ence won’t ac­cept your war­rant on its face, then you have to con­vince them to ac­cept it by treat­ing it as a claim in its own ar­gu­ment, sup­por­ted by its own reas­ons and evid­ence:

十八世纪初的新英格兰,遗嘱会列出贵重的家居用品,因此,如果遗嘱中没有提及某件物品,则表明立遗嘱人并不拥有该物品。迈尔斯和温恩(2018)的研究证实了这一点。他们对十八、十九世纪美国继承习俗的研究表明……

In early eight­eenth-cen­tury New Eng­land, wills lis­ted valu­able house­hold ob­jects, so when a will fails to men­tion such an ob­ject, the test­ator did not own one.war­rant/claim Myles and Winn (2018) con­firm that to be the case.reason Their study of in­her­it­ance prac­tices in eight­eenth- and nine­teenth-cen­tury Amer­ica shows that . . .evid­ence

8.3.2  您的授权是否足够有限?

8.3.2  Is Your War­rant Suf­fi­ciently Lim­ited?

大多数搜查令只有在一定范围内才合理。例如,关于钟表所有权的搜查令就过于僵化,因为它似乎不允许任何例外情况:

Most war­rants are reas­on­able only within cer­tain lim­its. For ex­ample, the war­rant about clock own­er­ship is too ri­gid be­cause it seems to al­low no ex­cep­tions:

十八世纪初的新英格兰,遗嘱会列出贵重的家居用品,因此,如果遗嘱中没有提及某件物品,则表示立遗嘱人并不拥有该物品。

In early eight­eenth-cen­tury New Eng­land, wills lis­ted valu­able house­hold ob­jects, so when a will fails to men­tion such an ob­ject, the test­ator did not own one.

如果加上限定条件,或许会显得更合理一些:

It might seem more plaus­ible if it were qual­i­fied:

在十八世纪初的新英格兰,遗嘱通常会列出主人认为特别珍贵的家居用品,因此,如果遗嘱中没有提及此类物品,则立遗嘱人可能没有该物品。

In early eight­eenth-cen­tury New Eng­land, wills usu­ally lis­ted house­hold ob­jects con­sidered es­pe­cially valu­able by their own­ers, so when a will fails to men­tion such an ob­ject, the test­ator prob­ably did not own one.

但是,一旦你开始在搜查令中使用“通常”、 “可能”和“尤其”之类的词语来限定搜查令,你就可能需要证明其例外情况并不排除你的理由和主张:通常和可能出现的频率是多少?钟表被认为特别珍贵

But once you start qual­i­fy­ing a war­rant with words like usu­ally, prob­ably, and es­pe­cially, you may then have to show that its ex­cep­tions do not ex­clude your reason and claim: What fre­quency are usu­ally and prob­ably? Were clocks con­sidered es­pe­cially valu­able?

8.3.3  您的认股权证是否优于任何竞争认股权证?

8.3.3  Is Your War­rant Su­per­ior to Any Com­pet­ing War­rants?

您可能认为您的搜查令合理且范围足够有限,但其他搜查令可能与之竞争或取代它。以下是两种相互竞争的搜查令,两者都可能被认为是合理的:

You may think your war­rant is reas­on­able and suf­fi­ciently lim­ited, but other war­rants might com­pete with or su­per­sede it. Here are two com­pet­ing war­rants, both ar­gu­ably reas­on­able:

当人们认为某种医疗程序可能会对他们造成伤害时,他们有权拒绝。泰勒认为新冠疫苗会导致心肌炎,因此他有权拒绝接种。

当医疗决策涉及公共卫生问题时,国家有权对其进行监管。广泛接种新冠疫苗能使所有人更安全,因此国家可以强制政府雇员接种疫苗。

When people be­lieve a med­ical pro­ced­ure may harm them, they have a right to re­fuse it. Taylor be­lieves that the COVID-19 vac­cine causes myocarditis, so he has a right to re­fuse it.

When med­ical de­cisions con­cern mat­ters of pub­lic health, the state has a right to reg­u­late them. Wide­spread vac­cin­a­tion for COVID-19 makes every­one safer, so the state can com­pel gov­ern­ment em­ploy­ees to re­ceive it.

哪份搜查令应该生效?这需要争论。

Which war­rant should pre­vail? That’s a mat­ter for ar­gu­ment.

有时可以通过限制相互冲突的认股权证来调和它们:

You can some­times re­con­cile com­pet­ing war­rants by lim­it­ing them:

当人们认为某种医疗程序可能会伤害自己时,他们有权拒绝, 只要这种拒绝不会危及他人的健康

当医疗决定涉及公共卫生问题时,国家有权对其进行监管, 只要国家尽可能少地侵犯个人对其身体的控制权

When people be­lieve a med­ical pro­ced­ure may harm them, they have a right to re­fuse it, so long as that does not jeop­ard­ize the health of oth­ers.

When med­ical de­cisions con­cern mat­ters of pub­lic health, the state has a right to reg­u­late them, so long as the state en­croaches as little as pos­sible on in­di­vidu­als’ right to con­trol what hap­pens to their bod­ies.

找到合适的平衡点,或者说找到任何平衡点,并非易事。事实上,所谓的“文化战争”争论(例如关于新冠疫苗接种要求的争论)之所以如此激烈且难以解决,是因为它们更多地关乎相互冲突的价值观和原则(即各自的理由),而非理由或证据。

Find­ing the right bal­ance, or any bal­ance at all, is not al­ways easy. In fact, so-called “cul­ture wars” ar­gu­ments (like those over COVID-19 vac­cine re­quire­ments) are of­ten so heated and in­tract­able be­cause they are more about com­pet­ing val­ues and prin­ciples (that is to say, war­rants) than about reas­ons or evid­ence.

8.3.4  您的授权书是否适用于此领域?

8.3.4  Is Your War­rant Ap­pro­pri­ate to This Field?

你的论证理由或许合理、范围足够窄,也优于其他理由,但它仍然必须被认为适用于该论证所涉及的领域。法学生在学习法律时会痛苦地发现,许多日常论证理由在法律论证中毫无用处。大多数人在进入法学院时都持有这种常识性的观念:

Your war­rant may be reas­on­able, suf­fi­ciently lim­ited, and su­per­ior to oth­ers, but it still has to be ac­cep­ted as ap­pro­pri­ate to the field to which an ar­gu­ment con­trib­utes. Law stu­dents get a pain­ful les­son in the law when they find that many every­day war­rants have no place in legal ar­gu­ments. Most start law school hold­ing this com­mon­sense be­lief:

当一个人受到不公正对待时,法律应当予以纠正。

When a per­son is wronged, the law should cor­rect it.

但法学生必须明白,法律依据可能凌驾于此类常识之上。例如:

But law stu­dents have to learn that legal war­rants may su­per­sede such com­mon­sense ideas. For ex­ample:

即使是无意的,忽视法律义务的人也必须承担后果。

When one ig­nores legal ob­lig­a­tions, even in­ad­vert­ently, one must suf­fer the con­sequences.

所以:

There­fore:

当老年房主忘记缴纳房产税时,其他人可以因拖欠税款而购买他们的房屋并将其驱逐。

When eld­erly home own­ers for­get to pay real es­tate taxes, oth­ers can buy their houses for back taxes and evict them.

法学生必须明白,从严格的法律意义上讲,正义不是他们认为合乎道德的结果,而是法律和法院支持的结果。

Law stu­dents must learn that justice, in a strictly legal sense, is not the out­come they be­lieve to be eth­ical but the one that the law and the courts sup­port.

8.3.5  您的保修单是否能够涵盖您的理由和索赔?

8.3.5  Is Your War­rant Able to Cover Your Reason and Claim?

最后,您必须确保您的理由和主张能够充分体现搜查令所涉的一般情况和一般后果。例如:

Fi­nally, you must be sure that your reason and claim are good in­stances of your war­rant’s gen­eral cir­cum­stance and gen­eral con­sequence. For ex­ample:

艾哈迈德:或许你应该开始用个效率应用,理由,你老是缺席我们的员工会议。

Ahmed: Maybe you should start us­ing a pro­ductiv­ity app,claim be­cause you keep miss­ing our staff meet­ings.reason

贝丝:你​​为什么觉得一款效率应用就能让我参加员工会议?

Beth: Why do you think a pro­ductiv­ity app will get me to at­tend our staff meet­ings?

艾哈迈德:如果你更有条理,通常情况下,你更有可能记住你的约会。

Ahmed: If you’re more or­gan­ized,gen­eral cir­cum­stance you’re more likely to re­mem­ber your ap­point­ments.gen­eral con­sequence

贝丝:嗯,我缺席那些会议并不是因为我缺乏条理。

Beth: Well, I don’t skip those meet­ings be­cause I’m un­or­gan­ized.

贝丝反对的并非艾哈迈德的理由是假的,而是这个理由不符合搜查令的一般情形她并不否认缺席过那些员工会议;她只是否认缺席的原因是她做事没条理。(也许她只是觉得这些会议浪费时间。)在她看来,艾哈迈德的理由不在其搜查令的涵盖范围内,因此与本案无关

Beth ob­jects not that Ahmed’s reason is false but that it is not a valid in­stance of his war­rant’s gen­eral cir­cum­stance. She doesn’t deny miss­ing those staff meet­ings; she only denies that the reason she’s miss­ing them is be­cause she’s un­or­gan­ized. (Maybe she just finds them a waste of time.) To her, Ahmed’s reason isn’t covered by his war­rant and is there­fore not rel­ev­ant.

贝丝也可能回应说,使用效率应用会让她变得不那么有条理:

Beth might also have re­spon­ded that us­ing a pro­ductiv­ity app would make her less or­gan­ized:

贝丝:我一直都用日程本,所以我觉得应用程序对我没什么帮助。

Beth: I’ve al­ways used a day plan­ner, so I really don’t think an app would help me.

在这种情况下,她会反对艾哈迈德的说法不是搜查令后果的一个很好的例子,换句话说,这并非从他的理由中得出的结论:即使她没有条理,生产力应用程序也帮不了她。

In that case, she would be ob­ject­ing that Ahmed’s claim isn’t a good in­stance of the war­rant’s con­sequence, in other words, that it doesn’t fol­low from his reason: even if she were un­or­gan­ized, a pro­ductiv­ity app wouldn’t help her.

大多数现实世界的争论都与此类似,其中“算作”搜查令一般情形的实例,或具体后果的认定,往往需要辩论和协商,而非毫无争议的定义。艾哈迈德和贝丝对于何为“无组织”可能存在合理的分歧,因为他们永远不会……关于什么使一个几何图形成为三角形的问题。这正是为什么关于证据的争论会引发进一步的争论,并最终带来更深刻的理解的另一个原因。

Most real-world ar­gu­ments are like this one, in which what “counts” as an in­stance of a war­rant’s gen­eral cir­cum­stance or what fol­lows as a spe­cific con­sequence is a mat­ter of de­bate and ne­go­ti­ation rather than one of un­con­tested defin­i­tion. Ahmed and Beth might reas­on­ably dis­agree about what makes a per­son “un­or­gan­ized” as they never would about what makes a geo­met­rical fig­ure a tri­angle. This is yet an­other reason ar­gu­ments about war­rants lead to fur­ther ar­gu­ments and, ideally, to bet­ter un­der­stand­ing.

8.4  何时申请搜查令

8.4  Know­ing When to State a War­rant

任何领域的论证都依赖于无数的推理原则,但其中大多数都深深植根于研究者的隐性知识中,或已被普遍接受,以至于常常被忽略甚至忽视。然而,在以下三种情况下,你可能需要明确地陈述论证依据:

Ar­gu­ments in any field de­pend on count­less prin­ciples of reas­on­ing, but most of these are so em­bed­ded in re­search­ers’ ta­cit know­ledge or so gen­er­ally ac­cep­ted that they go un­noted and even un­noticed. There are three oc­ca­sions, how­ever, when you may have to state a war­rant ex­pli­citly:

  1. 1.你的听众并非你的专业领域。当你向不具备你专业知识的听众阐述观点时,你可能需要解释你所在领域的专家是如何得出结论并支持其论点的,尤其是当这些推理方式不寻常时。
  2. 1. You are ad­dress­ing an audi­ence out­side your field. When you make an ar­gu­ment for an audi­ence that does not share your ex­pert­ise, you may need to ex­plain how ex­perts in your field draw con­clu­sions and sup­port their claims, es­pe­cially if these ways of reas­on­ing are un­usual.
  3. 2.你运用了在你所在领域较为新颖或存在争议的推理原则。当你依赖非常规的推理原则时,你的论点至少会受到部分人的质疑。因此,你需要阐明并论证你的论点,以消除这些质疑。你可以引用你所在领域中其他受人尊敬的学者也运用过类似的推理原则。如果无法做到这一点,你需要提出自己的论证来捍卫你的推理。
  4. 2. You use a prin­ciple of reas­on­ing that is new or con­tro­ver­sial in your field. When you rely on un­con­ven­tional prin­ciples of reas­on­ing, you can an­ti­cip­ate that your ar­gu­ment will be re­ceived at least by some with skep­ti­cism. So de­fuse that skep­ti­cism by stat­ing your war­rant and jus­ti­fy­ing it. Refer to re­spec­ted fig­ures in your field who also use it. If you can’t do that, make an ar­gu­ment of your own de­fend­ing your reas­on­ing.
  5. 3.你提出的观点可能会引起一些人的抵触,因为他们不愿接受这个事实。在这种情况下,一个好的策略是先提出一个你希望他们能够接受的证据,然后再 阐述理由并声称你怀疑他们会抵触。他们或许仍然不喜欢你的说法,但至少你会让他们意识到你的观点并非毫无道理。例如:
    1. 我们应该接受人类活动是气候变化的主要原因这一说法,因为几乎所有气候科学家都持有这种观点

    听众可能会抵制这种说法,因为它威胁到他们其他根深蒂固的信念。面对这样的听众,研究人员可以尝试提供他们应该能够接受的论据,以此鼓励他们至少考虑这种说法:

    1. 当绝大多数合格的专家得出相同的结论时,我们大概可以相信这个结论。因此,我们应该接受人类活动是气候变化的主要原因这一说法,因为几乎所有气候科学家都持有这种观点

    当听众认可某个理由合理、某个理由真实,并且该理由和主张都符合该理由所针对的一般情况和后果时,他们至少在逻辑上就有义务考虑该主张。如果他们不考虑,任何理性的论证都难以改变他们的想法。

  6. 3. You make a claim that some will res­ist be­cause they just don’t want it to be true. In this case, a good strategy is to of­fer a war­rant you hope they will ac­cept be­fore you lay out a reason and claim you sus­pect they will res­ist. They may not like the claim any bet­ter, but you will at least en­cour­age them to see that it is not un­reas­on­able. For ex­ample:
    1. We should ac­cept that hu­man ac­tions are largely re­spons­ible for cli­mate changeclaim be­cause vir­tu­ally all cli­mate sci­ent­ists hold that view.reason

    An audi­ence may res­ist that claim be­cause it threatens other strong con­vic­tions they hold. A re­searcher con­front­ing such an audi­ence might en­cour­age them at least to con­sider that claim by giv­ing them a war­rant that they should be able to ac­cept:

    1. When an over­whelm­ing ma­jor­ity of com­pet­ent ex­perts ar­rive at the same con­clu­sion, we can prob­ably trust it.war­rant We should there­fore ac­cept that hu­man ac­tions are largely re­spons­ible for cli­mate changeclaim be­cause vir­tu­ally all cli­mate sci­ent­ists hold that view.reason

    When an audi­ence ac­cepts that a war­rant is reas­on­able, that a reason is true, and that the reason and claim are good in­stances of the war­rant’s gen­eral cir­cum­stance and con­sequence, then they are lo­gic­ally ob­liged at least to con­sider the claim. If they don’t, no ra­tional ar­gu­ment is likely to change their minds.

8.5  使用搜查令检验你的论点

8.5  Us­ing War­rants to Test Your Ar­gu­ment

你可以通过尝试想象一个支持该论点的理由来检验其合理性。以下是一个有缺陷的论点:

You can test the sound­ness of an ar­gu­ment by try­ing to ima­gine a war­rant for it. Here’s a flawed ar­gu­ment:

如今12至16岁的青少年比上一代同龄人更容易出现心理健康问题。布朗(2021)的研究表明,自2010年以来,儿童焦虑和抑郁的发生率有所上升……由此可见社交媒体正在对儿童的心理健康产生不利影响。

Chil­dren aged 12–16 today are sig­ni­fic­antly more prone to men­tal health prob­lems than were their coun­ter­parts from a gen­er­a­tion ago.reason Brown (2021) has shown that since 2010, the in­cid­ence of anxi­ety and de­pres­sion in chil­dren has risen by . . .evid­ence We must con­clude that so­cial me­dia is hav­ing a det­ri­mental ef­fect on chil­dren’s men­tal health.claim

为了理解问题所在,我们可以尝试设想一种论证,将既定理由——儿童心理健康问题日益增多——与社交媒体至少在一定程度上造成这一增长的说法联系起来。这种说法看似合情合理,甚至可能属实,但却缺乏令人满意的论证(即,一种能够将……与上述论点联系起来的论证)。满足8.3 )中列出的五个标准,可以将该具体理由与具体主张联系起来。该理由需要类似于这样:

To un­der­stand what’s wrong here, we can try to ima­gine a war­rant that would con­nect the stated reason—chil­dren’s men­tal health prob­lems are in­creas­ing—to the claim that so­cial me­dia is at least in part re­spons­ible for that in­crease. That claim seems com­mon­sensical and may even be true, but there is no sat­is­fy­ing war­rant (that is, one that sat­is­fies the five cri­teria noted in 8.3) that can con­nect that spe­cific reason to that spe­cific claim. The war­rant would need to be some­thing like this:

当儿童心理健康状况恶化时,社交媒体往往难辞其咎。

When chil­dren’s men­tal health is af­fected for the worse,gen­eral cir­cum­stance so­cial me­dia is to blame.gen­eral con­sequence

这似乎不太合理。为什么单单挑出社交媒体?其他可能对儿童产生不利影响的因素又该如何解释呢?

That doesn’t seem reas­on­able. Why single out so­cial me­dia spe­cific­ally? What about all the other in­flu­ences that might ad­versely af­fect chil­dren?

为了修正这个论点,我们需要修改理由,使其成为听众能够接受的搜查令一般情形的良好例证,这可能也意味着需要提出新的证据来支持修改后的理由:

To fix that ar­gu­ment, we need to re­vise the reason so that it is a good in­stance of the gen­eral cir­cum­stance of a war­rant the audi­ence will ac­cept, which may also mean pro­du­cing new evid­ence to sup­port that re­vised reason:

儿童受到的不良影响越多,他们无法控制的负面影响就越严重,对他们心理健康的损害也就越大。社交媒体的使用是12至16岁儿童焦虑和抑郁的已知风险因素,而且在过去十年中显著增加。琼斯(2022)的研究表明……鉴于这些事实,社交媒体使用量的增加很可能使当今的儿童比十年前的儿童更容易出现心理健康问题。

The more chil­dren are sub­jec­ted to ad­verse in­flu­ences they can­not con­trol, the more severe the neg­at­ive ef­fects on their men­tal health will be.war­rant So­cial me­dia use, a known risk factor for anxi­ety and de­pres­sion in chil­dren aged 12–16, has in­creased sig­ni­fic­antly over the past ten years.new reason Jones (2022) shows that . . .new evid­ence Given these facts, it seems likely that in­creased so­cial me­dia use is mak­ing today’s chil­dren more prone to men­tal health is­sues than were chil­dren a dec­ade ago.claim

现在,理由和主张似乎更接近搜查令涵盖或包含的内容。我们在第149页的图中展示了这一论证的逻辑。

Now the reason and claim seem closer to what the war­rant cov­ers or in­cludes. We show this ar­gu­ment’s lo­gic in the fig­ure on p. 149.

但一些急于驳斥这种论点的怀疑论者可能仍然会提出异议:

But a skep­tic keen to de­rail the ar­gu­ment might still ob­ject:

等等。社交媒体并非总是孩子“无法控制”的“负面影响”。它难道就没有积极作用吗?诚然,儿童使用社交媒体与焦虑和抑郁的风险相关,但它也让孩子们有机会与朋友联系,否则他们可能会感到孤立……

Wait. So­cial me­dia isn’t al­ways an “ad­verse in­flu­ence” that chil­dren “can’t con­trol.” Couldn’t it have pos­it­ive ef­fects as well? Gran­ted, so­cial me­dia use among chil­dren is tied to a risk of anxi­ety and de­pres­sion, but it also al­lows chil­dren to con­nect with friends when oth­er­wise they might re­main isol­ated . . .

对此,研究人员就必须应对这些挑战。现在你明白为什么重要问题总是争论不休,为什么即使你觉得自己的论点无懈可击,别人仍然会说:“等等,那……呢?”

In re­sponse, the re­searcher would have to deal with those chal­lenges. Now you un­der­stand why im­port­ant is­sues are so end­lessly con­tested, why even when you feel your case is air­tight, oth­ers can still say, Wait a minute. What about . . . ?

该图描绘了一般情况及其后果之间的关系,并由此推断出特定情况(原因)及其后果(主张)。图的顶部写着“这一一般情况蕴含着这一一般后果”,底部写着“这一特定情况使我们能够推断出这一特定后果”。中间左侧的文字“这是一个很好的例子”与一组箭头相连,一组箭头向下,一组箭头向上,连接着“一般情况”和“特定情况”。中间右侧的文字“这是一个很好的例子”也与一组箭头相连,一组箭头向下,一组箭头向上,连接着“一般后果”和“特定后果”。该图以“儿童受到他们无法控制的不利影响越多”作为一般情况的例子,以“对他们心理健康的负面影响就越严重”作为一般后果的例子。它以“过去十年间,儿童使用社交媒体显著增加”这一新理由为例,展示了具体情况;并以“社交媒体使用增加很可能使当今儿童比十年前儿童更容易出现心理健康问题”这一说法为例,展示了具体后果,两者之间用“因此”连接。

8.6  对他人签发的搜查令提出质疑

8.6  Chal­len­ging Oth­ers’ War­rants

最难提出的论证,不仅挑战论点和证据,更挑战研究群体所接受的论证基础。没有比这更难的论证任务了,因为这要求一个群体不仅改变他们的信念,还要改变他们的推理方式。要成功挑战一个论证基础,你首先必须设想那些接受它的人会如何捍卫它。论证基础可以基于不同类型的支撑论据,因此你必须用不同的方式去挑战它们。

The most dif­fi­cult ar­gu­ments to make are those that chal­lenge not just claims and evid­ence but the war­rants a re­search com­munity em­braces. No ar­gu­ment­at­ive task is harder, be­cause in do­ing so, you ask a com­munity to change not just what they be­lieve but how they reason. To chal­lenge a war­rant suc­cess­fully, you must first ima­gine how those who ac­cept it would de­fend it. War­rants can be based on dif­fer­ent kinds of sup­port­ing ar­gu­ments, so you have to chal­lenge them in dif­fer­ent ways.

8.6.1  基于经验对认股权证提出质疑

8.6.1  Chal­len­ging War­rants Based on Ex­per­i­ence

我们根据自身经验或他人报告做出一些搜查令。

We base some war­rants on our ex­per­i­ence or on re­ports by oth­ers.

如果一个人习惯性说谎,我们就不应该信任他。

无风不起浪。

当政府债券收益率曲线倒挂时,经济衰退的可能性就很大。

When people ha­bitu­ally lie, we shouldn’t trust them.

Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.

When the yield curve in gov­ern­ment bonds in­verts, a re­ces­sion is likely.

要质疑这些证据,你必须质疑经验的可靠性,但这通常并不容易,或者找到不能被当作特殊案例而忽略的反例。

To chal­lenge those war­rants, you must chal­lenge the re­li­ab­il­ity of the ex­per­i­ence, which is rarely easy, or find counter­examples that can­not be dis­missed as spe­cial cases.

8.6.2  基于授权对搜查令提出质疑

8.6.2  Chal­len­ging War­rants Based on Au­thor­ity

我们之所以相信某些人,是因为他们的专业知识、地位或个人魅力:

We be­lieve some people be­cause of their ex­pert­ise, po­s­i­tion, or cha­risma:

当权威人士X说Y时,Y就一定是Y。

When au­thor­ity X says Y, Y must be so.

挑战权威最简单也最友好的方式是指出,在相关问题上,权威人士掌握的证据不足,或者其观点超出了自身专业范围。而最激进的方式则是指出,该权威人士根本就不是权威。

The easi­est—and friend­li­est—way to chal­lenge an au­thor­ity is to ar­gue that, on the mat­ter in ques­tion, the au­thor­ity does not have all the evid­ence or reaches bey­ond its ex­pert­ise. The most ag­gress­ive way is to ar­gue that the source is in fact not an au­thor­ity at all.

8.6.3  对基于知识体系的搜查令提出质疑

8.6.3  Chal­len­ging War­rants Based on Sys­tems of Know­ledge

这些依据都基于一套定义、原则或理论体系:

These war­rants are backed by sys­tems of defin­i­tions, prin­ciples, or the­or­ies:

  • 数学原理 两个奇数相加,结果是一个偶数。
  • FROM MATH­EM­AT­ICS: When we add two odd num­bers, we get an even one.
  • 生物学知识 当一个生物进行有性繁殖时,它的后代与父母双方都不同。
  • FROM BIO­LOGY: When an or­gan­ism re­pro­duces sexu­ally, its off­spring dif­fer from either par­ent.
  • 法律规定 当存在先例时,法官应当遵循先例。
  • FROM LAW: When a pre­ced­ent ex­ists, a judge should fol­low it.

当你对这些搜查令提出质疑时,“事实”在很大程度上无关紧要。你必须要么挑战制度本身(这总是很困难的),要么证明该案件不符合搜查令的适用范围。

When you chal­lenge these war­rants, “facts” are largely ir­rel­ev­ant. You must either chal­lenge the sys­tem, al­ways dif­fi­cult, or show that the case does not fall un­der the war­rant.

8.6.4  挑战文化权威

8.6.4  Chal­len­ging Cul­tural War­rants

文化依据并非来自个人经验,而是来自整个文化的共同经验,因此似乎是不容置疑的“常识”:

Cul­tural war­rants are backed not by in­di­vidual ex­per­i­ence but by the com­mon ex­per­i­ence of an en­tire cul­ture and there­fore seem to be un­as­sail­able “com­mon sense”:

善有善报恶有恶报。

侮辱是正当的,报复是合理的。

那些杀不死你的,只会让你更强大。

What goes around comes around.

An in­sult jus­ti­fies re­tali­ation.

What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.

这类搜查令可能会随着时间推移而改变,但变化缓慢。你可以通过提供相互竞争的搜查令或指出其文化特殊性来质疑它们。

War­rants like these may change over time, but slowly. You can chal­lenge them by of­fer­ing com­pet­ing war­rants or by not­ing their cul­tural spe­cificity.

8.6.5  质疑方法论依据

8.6.5  Chal­len­ging Meth­od­o­lo­gical War­rants

这些论据是普遍的思维模式,只有应用于具体案例才有意义。我们用它们来解释抽象推理(许多谚语都源于此):

These war­rants are gen­eral pat­terns of thought with no con­tent un­til ap­plied to spe­cific cases. We use them to ex­plain ab­stract reas­on­ing (they are the source of many pro­verbs):

  • 概括:当所有已知的 X 实例都具有品质 Y 时,所有 X 实例可能都具有品质 Y。(见过一个,就等于见过所有。
  • GEN­ER­AL­IZ­A­TION: When every known case of X has qual­ity Y, then all Xs prob­ably have qual­ity Y. (Seen one, seen them all.)
  • 类比:如果 X 在大多数方面都像 Y,那么 X 在其他方面也会像 Y。(有其父必有其子。
  • ANA­LOGY: When X is like Y in most re­spects, then X will be like Y in other re­spects. (The acorn doesn’t fall far from the tree.)
  • 征兆:当Y经常出现在X之前、期间或之后时,Y就是X的征兆。(手冷心暖。
  • SIGN: When Y reg­u­larly oc­curs be­fore, dur­ing, or after X, Y is a sign of X. (Cold hands, warm heart.)

哲学家们对这些论证提出了质疑,但在实际论证中,我们只质疑它们的适用性或指出限制条件:是的,我们可以将 X 类比为 Y,但前提是……

Philo­soph­ers have ques­tioned these war­rants, but in mat­ters of prac­tical ar­gu­ment­a­tion, we chal­lenge only their ap­plic­a­tion or point out lim­it­ing con­di­tions: Yes, we can ana­lo­gize X to Y, but not if . . .

8.6.6  基于信条对搜查令提出质疑

8.6.6  Chal­len­ging War­rants Based on Art­icles of Faith

有些权利不容置疑:托马斯·杰斐逊在《独立宣言》中写道:“我们认为这些真理是不言而喻的,人人生而平等……”。其他权利包括:

Some war­rants are bey­ond chal­lenge: Thomas Jef­fer­son in­voked one when he wrote in the De­clar­a­tion of In­de­pend­ence, We hold these truths to be self-evid­ent, that all men are cre­ated equal. . . . Oth­ers in­clude

如果一项主张是基于自然法,那么它必然是正确的。

如果一项主张是基于神圣启示,那么它必然是真的。

When a claim is based on nat­ural law, it must be true.

When a claim is based on di­vine rev­el­a­tion, it must be true.

此类论据并非基于论证,而是基于拥护者的信念,因此几乎不可能用其他论据直接反驳。当论据被用来绕过辩论的来回往复,将某个特定主张置于不容置疑的境地时,我们就脱离了研究和研究论证的范畴。一个被假定为真——而非基于支持它的理由和证据而被判断为真或至少是合理的主张——不能被视为研究的成果。

Such war­rants are backed not by ar­gu­ments but by the con­vic­tion of those who es­pouse them, and they are there­fore al­most im­possible to con­test dir­ectly with com­pet­ing war­rants. When a war­rant is used to short-cir­cuit the give-and-take of ar­gu­ment­a­tion by pla­cing a par­tic­u­lar claim bey­ond dis­pute, we have left the do­main of re­search and re­search ar­gu­ment. A claim as­sumed to be true—rather than judged to be true or at least plaus­ible be­cause of the reas­ons and evid­ence sup­port­ing it—can­not be con­sidered a product of re­search.

▶ 小贴士:理由、证据和搜查令

▶ Quick Tip: Reas­ons, Evid­ence, and War­rants

你可以用两种方式来论证你的理由:提供证据支持,或者从确凿的证据中推导出理由。这两种方式会引出不同类型的论证。研究人员通常更信任第一种方式,所以尽可能地将你的理由建立在可靠的证据之上。比较以下两种论证:

You can jus­tify your reas­ons in two ways: by of­fer­ing evid­ence to sup­port them or by de­riv­ing them from a war­rant. Each of these ways leads to a dif­fer­ent kind of ar­gu­ment. Re­search­ers gen­er­ally trust the first kind more than the second, so base your reas­ons on solid evid­ence when you can. Com­pare these two ar­gu­ments:

我们应该尽一切努力阻止青少年边开车边发短信因为分心驾驶是导致青少年死亡的主要原因之一根据美国疾病控制与预防中心(CDC)的数据,机动车事故造成了12至19岁人群超过三分之一的死亡,而边开车边发短信会成倍增加发生事故的可能性。此外,……证据

我们应该尽一切努力阻止青少年边开车边发短信因为这样做会增加他们发生事故的风险。理由一:开车本身就很难,发短信会分散注意力;理由二:支持理由一,我们知道,人们在执行复杂任务时如果分心,他们的表现就会受到影响。理由二与理由一相互关联。

We should do what we can to dis­cour­age teen­agers from tex­ting and driv­ingclaim be­cause dis­trac­ted driv­ing is a lead­ing cause of teen­age deaths.reason Ac­cord­ing to the CDC, mo­tor vehicle ac­ci­dents are re­spons­ible for over a third of all fatal­it­ies among people aged 12–19, and tex­ting while driv­ing ex­po­nen­tially in­creases the like­li­hood that any driver will be in­volved in one. Moreover, . . .evid­ence

We should do what we can to dis­cour­age teen­agers from tex­ting and driv­ingclaim be­cause when they do, their risk of hav­ing an ac­ci­dent in­creases.reason 1 Driv­ing is dif­fi­cult and tex­ting a dis­trac­tion,reason 2 sup­port­ing reason 1 and we know that when people are dis­trac­ted while per­form­ing com­plex tasks, their per­form­ance suf­fers.war­rant link­ing reason 2 and reason 1

如果你和大多数人一样,你可能更倾向于第一种论点。这是因为它的论据并无争议(因此无需赘述),而且它的主张有确凿的证据支持。第二种论点也看似合理,因为理由一和理由二恰好体现了该论据的一般后果和条件。但大多数人仍然希望看到证据。

If you are like most people, you prob­ably pre­ferred the first of these ar­gu­ments. That’s be­cause its war­rant is not con­tro­ver­sial (and there­fore goes without say­ing) and its claim is sup­por­ted by a reason based on solid evid­ence. That second ar­gu­ment is plaus­ible be­cause reason 1 and reason 2 are good in­stances of that war­rant’s gen­eral con­sequence and con­di­tion. But most people still want evid­ence.

尤其需要指出的是,仅凭证据和理由是无法支持事实主张的(参见6.1 ):

In par­tic­u­lar, you can’t sup­port a claim of fact (see 6.1) with a war­rant and reason alone:

开车发短信是导致青少年死亡的主要原因之一,因为开车发短信会严重分散注意力。驾驶员分心会增加发生严重甚至致命事故的风险。

Tex­ting and driv­ing is a lead­ing cause of teen­age deathsclaim of fact be­cause tex­ting while driv­ing is very dis­tract­ing.reason When drivers are dis­trac­ted, they in­crease their risk of hav­ing ser­i­ous, even fatal ac­ci­dents.war­rant

你是不是在想,我或许会相信,但我想要一些证据?这种合乎常理的反应很能说明问题。我们不能仅仅依靠推理就得出结论。得出“开车时发短信是导致青少年死亡的主要原因,甚至导致青少年死亡”这样的结论并不正确。除了少数领域——例如数学、哲学和神学的某些分支——证明一个事实主张的方法是,用证据证明你所主张的确实是事实

Are you think­ing, I could be­lieve that, but I’d like some proof? That com­mon­sense re­sponse is telling. We can’t just reason our way to the con­clu­sion that tex­ting while driv­ing is a lead­ing cause of teen fatal­it­ies, or even that it causes teen fatal­it­ies at all. Ex­cept in a few fields—some branches of math­em­at­ics, philo­sophy, theo­logy—the way to demon­strate a claim of fact is to show with evid­ence that what you are claim­ing is, in fact, the case.

教训是:只要有可能,就不要依靠基于理由的复杂推理,而要依靠确凿的证据。

The les­son is this: whenever you can, rely not on elab­or­ate lines of reas­on­ing based on war­rants but on hard evid­ence.

9 致谢与回应

9  Ac­know­ledg­ments and Re­sponses

如果论证未能承认其他观点,那么它就是不完整的。本章将阐述如何通过承认并回应他人可能提出的问题、反对意见和替代方案,使你的论证更具说服力。

An ar­gu­ment is not com­plete if it fails to re­cog­nize other points of view. This chapter shows how you can make your ar­gu­ment more con­vin­cing by ac­know­ledging and re­spond­ing to ques­tions, ob­jec­tions, and al­tern­at­ives oth­ers might raise.

再次强调,你的论证核心在于提出一个由证据支撑的理由,并以此为依据展开论断。你可以用其他子理由及其证据来充实论证,或许还可以加入一些将论断与其理由联系起来的论证依据。但是,如果你只向听众提供论断、理由、证据和论证依据——无论这些对你来说多么有说服力——他们仍然可能觉得你的论证单薄,或者轻视他们的观点。论证不仅仅是逻辑构建,它也是一种社会互动。

The core of your ar­gu­ment, again, is a claim sup­por­ted by reas­ons based on evid­ence. You thicken it with ad­di­tional sub-reas­ons and their evid­ence and per­haps also with war­rants that con­nect that claim to its reas­ons. But if you give your audi­ence only claims, reas­ons, evid­ence, and war­rants—no mat­ter how com­pel­ling these are to you—they may still find your ar­gu­ment thin or dis­missive of their views. Ar­gu­ments are not just lo­gical con­struc­tions; they are also so­cial in­ter­ac­tions.

要构建一个成功的论证,你不仅需要构建一个由论点、理由和证据构成的坚实体系,还需要将这些论点融入到一场持续的对话中,让听众参与到你的论证中来(参见引言5.1节)。可以将你的主要论点呈现为一个听众关心的问题的解决方案(这是引言的重要功能,我们将在第14)。你还可以预先设想、承认并回应听众可能提出的问题、反对意见和替代方案。在你计划和撰写论文或演示文稿时,听众不会在场提问或提出他们的观点。因此,你必须设想他们的问题和观点,并将它们考虑在内。这就是你如何与听众建立合作关系的方式——想象自己正在与他们对话。

To craft a suc­cess­ful ar­gu­ment, you must do more than as­semble a sound edi­fice of claims, reas­ons, and evid­ence; you must also bring your audi­ence into your ar­gu­ment by po­s­i­tion­ing those claims as con­tri­bu­tions to an on­go­ing con­ver­sa­tion in which your audi­ence is in­ves­ted (see the in­tro­duc­tion and 5.1). You can do this by present­ing your main claim as a solu­tion to a prob­lem your audi­ence cares about (that’s an im­port­ant func­tion of in­tro­duc­tions, which we will talk more about in chapter 14). You can also do it by an­ti­cip­at­ing, ac­know­ledging, and re­spond­ing to ques­tions, ob­jec­tions, and al­tern­at­ives that you think an audi­ence might raise. As you plan and draft your pa­per or present­a­tion, those oth­ers won’t be there to ques­tion you or to of­fer their own views. So you have to ima­gine their ques­tions and views and take them into ac­count. That’s how you es­tab­lish a co­oper­at­ive re­la­tion­ship with your audi­ence, by ima­gin­ing your­self con­vers­ing with its mem­bers.

本章将向您展示如何设想并应对听众可能就您的论点提出的三种问题:

In this chapter, we show you how to ima­gine and ad­dress three kinds of ques­tions an audi­ence may ask about your ar­gu­ment:

  • ▪ 他们可能会质疑研究问题或研究课题,想知道为什么这个论点值得提出。
  • ▪  They may chal­lenge the re­search ques­tion or prob­lem it ad­dresses, won­der­ing why the ar­gu­ment is worth mak­ing at all.
  • 他们可能会质疑你的论点是否合理或连贯——你的主张是否清晰,你的理由和证据是否质量,或者你的逻辑和推理是否合理。
  • ▪  They may ques­tion your ar­gu­ment’s sound­ness or co­her­ence—the clar­ity of your claim, the qual­ity of your reas­ons and evid­ence, or your lo­gic and reas­on­ing.
  • ▪ 他们可能会要求你考虑其他方案——不同的问题表述方式、其他可能的说法或解决方案、你忽略的证据,或者其他人就你的主题写过什么。
  • ▪  They may ask you to con­sider al­tern­at­ives—dif­fer­ent ways of fram­ing the prob­lem, other pos­sible claims or solu­tions, evid­ence you’ve over­looked, or what oth­ers have writ­ten on your topic.

当你预见、承认并回应所有这三种类型的问题时,你就能构建出一个更容易被听众信任和接受的论点。不要对自己太苛刻:发现论点中的问题时,就是修正它的最佳时机。

When you an­ti­cip­ate, ac­know­ledge, and re­spond to all three kinds of ques­tions, you cre­ate an ar­gu­ment that your audi­ence will more likely trust and ac­cept. Don’t go easy on your­self: the time to fix a prob­lem with your ar­gu­ment is when you find it.

9.1  关于您的研究问题的问题

9.1  Ques­tions about Your Re­search Prob­lem

第一部分中,我们指出,好的研究始于好的问题,这些问题会引出有趣的问题——也就是说,研究界认为重要且值得解决的问题。关于你的研究问题的问题与其说是关于你的论证本身的问题,不如说是论证之前的问题。但如果你无法回答这些问题,你的听众就有可能根本不会关注你的论证。研究者需要能够让听众满意地回答的第一个问题是:我为什么要关心这个问题?(参见 I.4.3、2.5 和 6.2。)

In part I, we noted that good re­search be­gins with good ques­tions lead­ing to in­ter­est­ing prob­lems—that is, prob­lems re­search com­munit­ies be­lieve are sig­ni­fic­ant and worth solv­ing. Ques­tions about your re­search prob­lem are less ques­tions about your ar­gu­ment it­self than ques­tions that pre­cede your ar­gu­ment. But if you can’t an­swer them, you risk your audi­ence not at­tend­ing to your ar­gu­ment at all. The first ques­tion a re­searcher needs to be able to an­swer to an audi­ence’s sat­is­fac­tion is Why should I care? (See I.4.3, 2.5, and 6.2.)

当听众理解研究问题或议题的重要性,并相信你的研究项目——也就是说,当他们相信你的项目能够得出可靠的解决方案或答案——时,他们才会关注你的研究论点。以下是一些可以帮助你建立这种信任的问题。

An audi­ence will care about a re­search ar­gu­ment when they ap­pre­ci­ate the sig­ni­fic­ance of the ques­tion or prob­lem it ad­dresses and when they be­lieve in your re­search pro­ject—that is, when they be­lieve your pro­ject could lead to a trust­worthy solu­tion or an­swer. Here are some ques­tions you can ad­dress to cre­ate that con­fid­ence.

首先明确你的研究问题:

Start with your re­search prob­lem:

  1. 1.你认为问题究竟出在哪里?这个问题带来的成本或后果必须对你和你的听众来说都十分重大。
  2. 1. Why do you think there’s a prob­lem at all? The costs or con­sequences of the situ­ation need to be sig­ni­fic­ant, for you and your audi­ence.
  3. 2.你是否正确定义了问题?确保问题涉及你提出的问题,而不是其他问题,并且问题的范围是可控的(既不太大,也不太小)。
  4. 2. Have you prop­erly defined the prob­lem? Be sure the prob­lem in­volves the is­sue you raise and not an­other one and that its scope is man­age­able (not too big, not too small).
  5. 3.问题是实际性的还是概念性的?也就是说,它的解决方法是采取行动还是理解
  6. 3. Is the prob­lem prac­tical or con­cep­tual? That is, does it call for ac­tion or for un­der­stand­ing as its solu­tion?
  7. 4.为什么这个问题很重要?你需要给出听众能够接受的答案。
  8. 4. Why is the prob­lem sig­ni­fic­ant? You need an an­swer to this ques­tion that your audi­ence will ac­cept.
  9. 5.你的听众会相信你的项目能够解决问题吗?为什么?有时,你必须先说服听众,让他们相信你能回答某个研究问题(例如,通过证明你具备必要的能力或专业知识,或者你能获得必要的数据),然后再着手回答这个问题。
  10. 5. Will your audi­ence be­lieve your pro­ject will al­low you to solve the prob­lem? Why or why not? Some­times you have to per­suade your audi­ence that you can an­swer a re­search ques­tion (for in­stance, by demon­strat­ing that you have the ne­ces­sary cap­ab­il­it­ies or ex­pert­ise or that you can get the ne­ces­sary data) be­fore you pro­ceed to an­swer it.

9.2  关于你论证合理性的问题

9.2  Ques­tions about the Sound­ness of Your Ar­gu­ment

接下来的问题关乎你论证的核心——你的主张、理由和证据——以及你的论证依据。它们关系到你论证本身的质量,或者说它的各个部分是否衔接得当。首先从你的问题解决方案或主张入手:

These next ques­tions are about the core of your ar­gu­ment—your claim, reas­ons, and evid­ence—and your war­rants. They con­cern the qual­ity of your ar­gu­ment it­self, or how well its parts hang to­gether. Start with the solu­tion to your prob­lem, or your claim:

  1. 1.你的解决方案或主张是实用的还是概念性的,它是否与问题相符?
  2. 1. Is your solu­tion or claim prac­tical or con­cep­tual, and does it match the prob­lem?
  3. 2.你的解决方案或主张是否能解决问题?
  4. 2. Does your solu­tion or claim solve the prob­lem?
  5. 3.你的说法是否足够具体,还是过于笼统或模糊?
  6. 3. Is your claim spe­cific enough, or is it too sweep­ing or vague?
  7. 4.你的主张是否可以被质疑?
  8. 4. Is your claim con­test­able?
  9. 5.你的说法是否经过适当的限制,或者你是否提出了过于强硬的说法?
  10. 5. Is your claim ap­pro­pri­ately hedged, or have you stated your claim too strongly?

注意你的论点中哪些地方看似薄弱,但实际上并非如此。例如,如果你预料到听众会认为你的解决方案存在实际上并不存在的成本,你可以通过承认并回应这种担忧来消除它:

Note where your ar­gu­ment might seem weak but ac­tu­ally isn’t. If, for ex­ample, you an­ti­cip­ate that your audi­ence will think your solu­tion has costs that it doesn’t, you can de­fuse that con­cern by ac­know­ledging and re­spond­ing to it:

或许有人会认为,关注特定银行的行为会淡化导致金融危机的系统性因素,但事实上,我们的案例研究将表明……

It might seem that by fo­cus­ing on the ac­tions of spe­cific banks, we are min­im­iz­ing the sys­temic forces that con­trib­uted to the fin­an­cial crisis, but, in fact, our case stud­ies will show . . .

接下来,质疑你的论据——你的理由和证据。首先从你的理由开始:

Next, ques­tion your sup­port—your reas­ons and evid­ence. Start with your reas­ons:

  1. 1.你有足够的理由吗?
  2. 1. Do you have enough reas­ons?
  3. 2.你的理由是否一致,还是相互矛盾?
  4. 2. Are your reas­ons con­sist­ent, or do they con­tra­dict each other?
  5. 3.你的理由与你的主张相关吗?
  6. 3. Are your reas­ons rel­ev­ant to your claim?

接下来,设想一下你的证据可能会受到哪些质疑。听众可能会质疑证据的类型或时效性:

Next, ima­gine chal­lenges to your evid­ence. An audi­ence might ques­tion its kind or cur­rency:

  1. 1.“你提供的证据类型不适用于我们这个领域”;“我想看到另一种证据——确凿的数据,而不是轶事(或者关于真实人物的故事,而不是冷冰冰的数字)。”
  2. 1. “You have the wrong kind of evid­ence for our field”; “I want to see a dif­fer­ent sort of evid­ence—hard num­bers, not an­ec­dotes (or stor­ies about real people, not cold num­bers).”
  3. 2.“这个证据已经过时了”;“有比这更新的研究”。
  4. 2. “This evid­ence is out-of-date”; “There’s newer re­search than this.”

即使你提供的证据类型正确且是最新的,听众仍然可能会质疑其质量:

If you present the right kind of evid­ence and your evid­ence is cur­rent, an audi­ence might still ques­tion its qual­ity:

  1. 1.“这不准确。数字对不上。”
  2. 1. “It isn’t ac­cur­ate. The num­bers don’t add up.”
  3. 2.“这个说法不够精确。‘许多’是什么意思?”
  4. 2. “It isn’t pre­cise enough. What do you mean by ‘many’?”
  5. 3.“这不够充分,也不具有代表性。你没有获得所有群体的数据。”
  6. 3. “It isn’t suf­fi­cient or rep­res­ent­at­ive. You didn’t get data on all the groups.”
  7. 4.“这不具有权威性。史密斯并非这方面的专家。”
  8. 4. “It isn’t au­thor­it­at­ive. Smith is no ex­pert on this mat­ter.”
  9. 5.“这太难懂了。我看不懂你的数据。”
  10. 5. “It isn’t un­der­stand­able. I can’t make sense of your data.”
  11. 6. “我不明白。这有什么关系?”
  12. 6. “I don’t get it. How is this rel­ev­ant?”

当听众的利益与你的方案相悖时,他们往往会格外怀疑。因此,如果你觉得自己的证据存在局限性,最好在听众提出异议之前坦诚地承认。总之,在构建论点时,要像你预期中最持怀疑态度的听众那样,检验你的主张、理由和证据。这样,你至少可以回应他们可能提出的最重要的反对意见。在听众进行自我检验之前,让他们看到你已经对你的论点进行了充分的“压力测试”。即便如此,仍然可能有人不为所动。他们要么一开始就不愿被说服(因此一开始就不是真正的对话伙伴),要么就是根本不信服。那就这样吧。

An audi­ence can be par­tic­u­larly skep­tical when they have a stake in a solu­tion that dif­fers from yours. So if you feel your evid­ence has lim­it­a­tions, you may want to ad­mit them can­didly, be­fore your audi­ence ob­jects. In sum, when as­sem­bling your ar­gu­ment, test your claims, reas­ons, and evid­ence as you ex­pect the most skep­tical mem­bers of your audi­ence will. You can then ad­dress at least the most im­port­ant ob­jec­tions that you can ima­gine them rais­ing. Show your audi­ence that you’ve put your ar­gu­ment through your own “stress test” be­fore they put it through theirs. Even then, some might re­main un­per­suaded. Either they were not will­ing to be per­suaded (and there­fore not genu­ine con­ver­sa­tional part­ners to be­gin with) or they were simply un­con­vinced. So be it.

9.3  设想与你的论点不同的其他方案

9.3  Ima­gin­ing Al­tern­at­ives to Your Ar­gu­ment

当你意识到自己论点的局限性时,你就能建立起可信度,因为这向听众表明你提出的论点是真诚的,并且你公平地对待他们。如果你不仅展现出你理解自己论点的优势和局限性,而且还展现出你理解并思考过其他替代方案,那么你的可信度会更高。

When you re­cog­nize your ar­gu­ment’s lim­it­a­tions, you build cred­ib­il­ity by show­ing your audi­ence that you are mak­ing an hon­est case and deal­ing with them fairly. You will seem even more cred­ible if you show not just that you un­der­stand the strengths and lim­it­a­tions of your ar­gu­ment, but also that you un­der­stand and have thought about the al­tern­at­ives to it.

那些与你世界观不同的人,不仅可能持有与你不同的观点,而且可能对术语的定义不同,推理方式不同,甚至提供的证据也不同。不要简单地忽视这些差异;相反,要承认并回应其中最重要的差异,将它们融入你的论证中。

Those who see the world dif­fer­ently from you are likely not just to hold views that dif­fer from yours but also to define terms dif­fer­ently, to reason dif­fer­ently, even to of­fer dif­fer­ent evid­ence. Do not simply dis­miss these dif­fer­ences; in­stead, bring the most im­port­ant of them into your ar­gu­ment by ac­know­ledging and re­spond­ing to them.

如果你对研究主题和目标受众非常了解,你可以尝试自己设想其他可能性。但通常来说,找到其他观点的最佳方法是查阅资料。在第四章​​中,我们鼓励你在研究过程中积极利用资料,不仅将其作为信息来源,更要激发自己的思考。资料中也提供了现成的其他观点,你可以对它们做出回应。

If you know your sub­ject and audi­ence very well, you can try to ima­gine those al­tern­at­ives your­self. But usu­ally the best way to identify al­tern­at­ive views is to look to your sources. In chapter 4, we en­cour­aged you to act­ively en­gage your sources dur­ing your re­search, to use them not just as sources of in­form­a­tion but to stim­u­late your own think­ing. Your sources also of­fer a ready sup­ply of al­tern­at­ive views that you can re­spond to.

你可以把二手资料看作是围绕你的主题、问题或难题展开的讨论的书面记录。了解这些讨论能让你参与其中。阅读资料时,注意它们提出的观点与你不同的地方,它们采用的方法不同的地方,它们关注问题的不同方面的地方等等。尤其要注意你和资料在哪些地方存在分歧,以及分歧的原因。还要注意不同资料之间是否存在分歧。所有这些分歧都能帮助你找到其他可以纳入自己论证的选项。如果你知道你会如何回应某个资料,就在阅读时把这种回应添加到你的笔记中。

You can think of your sec­ond­ary sources as a writ­ten re­cord of the con­ver­sa­tion about your topic, ques­tion, or prob­lem. Know­ing that con­ver­sa­tion al­lows you to con­trib­ute to it. When you read your sources, note where they ad­vance claims dif­fer­ent from yours, take dif­fer­ent ap­proaches, fo­cus on dif­fer­ent as­pects of the prob­lem, and so on. Note es­pe­cially where—and why—you and your sources dis­agree. Also note where one source dis­agrees with an­other. All those dis­agree­ments can help you identify al­tern­at­ives to ac­know­ledge in your own ar­gu­ment. If you know how you would re­spond to a par­tic­u­lar source, add that re­sponse to your notes as you read.

你不仅可以回应信息来源的主张,还可以回应他们的理由、证据和推理过程。如果你发现某个信息来源,你的受众可能会认真对待,但你却觉得它缺乏说服力,不要忽略它。相反,要解释原因。最后,信息来源还能帮助你设想受众,并预测他们对你的论点的反应。通常,你的受众会与信息来源的作者群体相似——有时甚至可能包括他们自己。

You can re­spond not only to your sources’ claims but also to their reas­ons and evid­ence, and their reas­on­ing. If you find a source that your audi­ence might take ser­i­ously but that you don’t find per­suas­ive, don’t ig­nore it. In­stead, ex­plain why. Fi­nally, your sources also help you ima­gine your audi­ence and an­ti­cip­ate their re­ac­tions to your ar­gu­ment. Of­ten your audi­ence will be made up of people like your sources’ au­thors—and some­times may even in­clude them.

9.4  决定承认什么

9.4  De­cid­ing What to Ac­know­ledge

如果你能设想出几种可能的替代方案和反对意见,你就会面临一个“金发姑娘”时刻:承认太多,会分散听众对论点核心的注意力;承认太少,又会显得你轻视甚至无视听众的观点。你需要找到一个“恰到好处”的承认数量。

If you can ima­gine just a few al­tern­at­ives and ob­jec­tions to your ar­gu­ment, you’ll face a Goldilocks mo­ment: Ac­know­ledge too many and you dis­tract from the core of your ar­gu­ment; ac­know­ledge too few and you seem dis­missive or even ig­nor­ant of your audi­ence’s views. You need to fig­ure out how many ac­know­ledg­ments will feel “just right.”

9.4.1  选择回应的内容

9.4.1  Choos­ing What to Re­spond To

为了缩小备选方案和反对意见的范围,请考虑以下优先事项:

To nar­row your list of al­tern­at­ives and ob­jec­tions, con­sider these pri­or­it­ies:

  • ▪ 你可以反驳的、看似合理的弱点指控
  • ▪  plaus­ible charges of weak­nesses that you can re­but
  • ▪ 您所在领域中重要的其他论证思路
  • ▪  al­tern­at­ive lines of ar­gu­ment im­port­ant in your field
  • ▪ 观众希望看到的替代结论
  • ▪  al­tern­at­ive con­clu­sions that an audi­ence wants to be true
  • ▪ 观众知晓的替代证据
  • ▪  al­tern­at­ive evid­ence that an audi­ence knows
  • ▪ 你必须回应的重要反例
  • ▪  im­port­ant counter­examples that you have to ad­dress

寻找机会重申你的论点。例如,如果听众可能误解了你的论点范围,请承认他们的疑虑,并通过澄清来提醒他们你的观点:

Look for op­por­tun­it­ies to re­it­er­ate parts of your ar­gu­ment. For ex­ample, if an audi­ence might mis­con­strue your ar­gu­ment’s scope, ac­know­ledge their con­cern and use your cla­ri­fic­a­tion to re­mind them of your point:

养殖鱼类中重金属污染确实令人担忧,但我们的研究重点是野生捕捞鱼类的营养价值……

There is reason to worry about heavy metal con­tam­in­a­tion in some farmed fish, but our study fo­cuses on the nu­tri­tional value of wild-caught . . .

或者,如果你的听众可能想到与你的方案相近的替代方案,那就利用这一点来强调你的方案的优点:

Or if your audi­ence might think of an al­tern­at­ive solu­tion close to yours, use it to em­phas­ize the vir­tues of your solu­tion:

大多数研究者认为,规则和其他形式的正式写作指导非但不能提高写作水平,反而会降低写作效率,因为写作“是一种无意识的意义建构行为,而非有意识地遵循规则的过程”。这在写作过程的某些方面是正确的:作者在撰写句子时不应该参考规则。但写作不仅涉及起草,还包含许多有意识的过程。本文将展示哪些正式指导对写作的有意识层面有效,哪些无效……

Most re­search­ers ar­gue that rules and other forms of formal writ­ing ad­vice de­grade rather than im­prove per­form­ance be­cause writ­ing “is a non-con­scious act of mak­ing mean­ing, not a con­scious pro­cess of fol­low­ing rules.” That is true for parts of the pro­cess: writers should not con­sult rules as they draft sen­tences. But writ­ing in­volves not just draft­ing but many con­scious pro­cesses as well. What we show here is what kinds of formal ad­vice do and do not work for con­scious as­pects of writ­ing. . . .

最后,要承认一些可能特别吸引观众的选择,但前提是你能做出实质性的回应,而不是轻视它们。

Fi­nally, ac­know­ledge al­tern­at­ives that may par­tic­u­larly ap­peal to your audi­ence but only if you can re­spond sub­stant­ively, without ap­pear­ing to brush them aside.

9.4.2  承认论点中的不足

9.4.2  Ac­know­ledging Weak­nesses in Your Ar­gu­ment

如果你发现论证中存在无法弥补的漏洞,可以尝试重新定义问题或重构论证以规避它。但如果实在无法做到,你将面临一个艰难的抉择。你可以选择忽略这个漏洞,希望听众不会注意到。但这并不诚实。如果他们注意到了,就会质疑你的能力;如果他们认为你试图掩盖漏洞,就会质疑你的诚实。我们的建议或许听起来有些天真,但却行之有效。坦诚地承认问题,并做出回应。

If you dis­cover a weak­ness in your ar­gu­ment that you can­not fix, try to re­define your prob­lem or re­build your ar­gu­ment to avoid it. But if you can­not, you face a tough de­cision. You could just ig­nore the weak­ness and hope your audi­ence doesn’t no­tice it. But that’s dis­hon­est. If they do no­tice it, they will doubt your com­pet­ence, and if they think you tried to hide it, they will ques­tion your hon­esty. Our ad­vice may seem na­ive, but it works. Can­didly ac­know­ledge the is­sue and re­spond that

  • ▪ 你的论点其余部分足以弥补这一不足。
  • ▪  the rest of your ar­gu­ment more than com­pensates for the weak­ness.
  • ▪ 虽然这个弱点很严重,但更多的研究将会找到克服它的方法。
  • ▪  while the weak­ness is ser­i­ous, more re­search will show a way around it.
  • ▪ 虽然这个缺陷使得我们无法完全接受你的说法,但你的论证为这个问题提供了重要的见解,并指出了一个更好的答案应该具备哪些特征。
  • ▪  while the weak­ness makes it im­possible to ac­cept your claim fully, your ar­gu­ment of­fers im­port­ant in­sight into the ques­tion and sug­gests what at­trib­utes a bet­ter an­swer would have.

有时,研究人员会化失败为成功,他们将自己想要支持但未能支持的论点视为一个其他人可能认为合理的假设。然后,他们会证明这个假设是不合理的:

Oc­ca­sion­ally re­search­ers turn fail­ure into suc­cess by treat­ing a claim they wanted to sup­port but couldn’t as a hy­po­thesis that oth­ers might find reas­on­able. Then they show why it isn’t:

人们或许会认为,当陪审员听到的案件事实侧重于受害者的痛苦时,他们更有可能指责被告。毕竟,这是原告律师的惯用伎俩,也是我们预期研究结果会证实的。但事实上,我们发现两者之间并无关联……

It might seem that when jur­ors hear the facts of a case in a form that fo­cuses on vic­tims’ suf­fer­ing, they will be more likely to blame the ac­cused. That is, after all, the stand­ard prac­tice of plaintiffs’ law­yers and what we ex­pec­ted our re­search to af­firm. But in fact, we found no cor­rel­a­tion between . . .

9.4.3  承认你无法回答的问题

9.4.3  Ac­know­ledging Ques­tions You Can’t An­swer

初学者有时试图在某个主题上占据绝对主导地位,提出一个不容置疑、唯有完全赞同的论点。这是个误区。经验丰富的研究人员明白,研究的目标通常是增进研究群体的集体理解,推动对话持续进行。事实上,最具启发性的研究往往不是回答现有问题,而是提出我们尚未想到的新问题。对于解决概念性问题的研究而言,这一点尤为重要,但对于应用研究也同样适用。

Be­gin­ning re­search­ers some­times aim to have the last word on a topic, to make an ar­gu­ment that al­lows for no re­sponse but total agree­ment. That’s a mis­take. Ex­per­i­enced re­search­ers know that the goal of re­search is usu­ally to ad­vance the col­lect­ive un­der­stand­ing of a re­search com­munity, to keep its con­ver­sa­tion go­ing. In fact, the most stim­u­lat­ing re­search is of­ten that which provides not an­swers to ex­ist­ing ques­tions but new ques­tions we haven’t yet thought to ask. This is es­pe­cially true for re­search ad­dress­ing con­cep­tual prob­lems, but it can be true for ap­plied re­search as well.

与其假装自己掌握了所有答案,不如坦诚地面对仍然存在的问题,这样有见识的听众会更认可你的论点,也会更尊重你这个人。

A know­ledge­able audi­ence will think bet­ter of your ar­gu­ment and of you if, rather than pre­tend­ing you have all the an­swers, you are can­did about ques­tions that still re­main.

9.5  将你的回应构建成子论点

9.5  Fram­ing Your Re­sponses as Sub-ar­gu­ments

你不能仅仅通过提出相互矛盾的观点来回应其他方案和反对意见。即使是最基本的回应也需要解释:

You can’t re­spond to al­tern­at­ives and ob­jec­tions simply by as­sert­ing com­pet­ing claims. Even a min­imal re­sponse de­mands ex­plan­a­tion:

虽然一些机构,例如美国预防服务工作组(USPSTF),不建议对55岁以上的男性进行常规PSA筛查,但我们特别关注筛查对高危人群(例如有前列腺癌家族史的男性)的价值。解释为何这种反对意见不适用。

While some or­gan­iz­a­tions, such as the US Pre­vent­ive Ser­vices Task Force (USP­STF), re­com­mend against routine PSA screen­ing of men over 55,ac­know­ledg­ment of ob­jec­tion we are con­cerned spe­cific­ally with the value of screen­ings for higher-risk pop­u­la­tions such as men with a fam­ily his­tory of pro­state can­cer.ex­plan­a­tion of why ob­jec­tion does not ap­ply

初步解释或许就足够了,但如果你觉得还需要更多帮助,请提供额外支持:

That ini­tial ex­plan­a­tion may be enough, but if you feel you need more, of­fer ad­di­tional sup­port:

尽管一些组织,例如美国预防服务工作组(USPSTF),不建议对55岁以上的男性进行常规PSA筛查,但我们特别关注对高危人群(例如有前列腺癌家族史的男性)进行筛查的价值我们承认,常规PSA筛查会导致过度诊断和过度治疗,使许多男性不必要地承受不良副作用。但Tsai等人(2021)的研究表明,结合有效的咨询,对高危人群进行检测可以降低​​……的发生率。

While some or­gan­iz­a­tions, such as the US Pre­vent­ive Ser­vices Task Force (USP­STF), re­com­mend against routine PSA screen­ing of men over 55,ac­know­ledg­ment of ob­jec­tion we are con­cerned spe­cific­ally with the value of screen­ings for at-risk pop­u­la­tions such as men with a fam­ily his­tory of pro­state can­cer.ex­plan­a­tion why ob­jec­tion does not ap­ply We re­cog­nize that routine PSA screen­ings have res­ul­ted in over­dia­gnosis and over­treat­ment, sub­ject­ing many men to ad­verse side ef­fects un­ne­ces­sar­ily,ad­di­tional con­ces­sion to the ob­jec­tion but Tsai et al. (2021) have shown that coupled with ef­fect­ive coun­sel­ing, the test­ing of at-risk pop­u­la­tions re­duces the in­cid­ence of . . .re­port of ad­di­tional evid­ence

如果你觉得还需要更多论据,就需要提出完整的子论点。同样,在回应各种选择时,你面临着一个“恰到好处”的选择:既不能太多,也不能太少。只有经验才能教会你如何找到这种平衡。所以,观察专家是如何做到这一点的,并效仿他们。

If you feel you need more still, you will need to of­fer a full sub-ar­gu­ment. Again, when re­spond­ing to al­tern­at­ives, you face a Goldilocks choice: not too much, not too little. Only ex­per­i­ence can teach you how to find this bal­ance. So no­tice how ex­perts achieve it and do like­wise.

9.6  致谢与回应的词汇

9.6  The Vocab­u­lary of Ac­know­ledg­ment and Re­sponse

当你想回应反对意见或替代方案时,你需要决定给予它多少关注:从仅仅提及反对意见并予以驳回,到详细阐述,不一而足。我们的建议大致按此顺序呈现,从最简短的开始。从最轻蔑的态度到最持久和尊重的态度。(方括号和斜杠表示其他选项。)

When you want to ac­know­ledge and re­spond to an ob­jec­tion or al­tern­at­ive, you have to de­cide how much at­ten­tion to give it: op­tions range from just men­tion­ing an ob­jec­tion and dis­miss­ing it to ad­dress­ing it at length. We present our ad­vice roughly in that or­der, from the briefest and most dis­missive to the most sus­tained and re­spect­ful. (Brack­ets and slashes in­dic­ate al­tern­at­ive choices.)

9.6.1  承认反对意见和替代方案

9.6.1  Ac­know­ledging Ob­jec­tions and Al­tern­at­ives

用能够体现你对反对意见或替代方案重视程度的语言来回应。以下是一些建议。

Ac­know­ledge an ob­jec­tion or al­tern­at­ive in lan­guage that shows how much weight you give it. Here are some op­tions.

  1. 1. 你可以用“尽管如此”、“不管怎样”或“尽管如此”来淡化反对意见或替代方案:
    1. 尽管市长声称她想降低房产税,对她最新预算提案的回应
    2. though、whileeven though 的用法相同:
    3. 尽管一些中小型银行倒闭,但零售银行业整体依然保持强劲势头……回应
    4. 2. 你可以用seemappear、maycould等词语,或者用 plausibly、 justifiablyreasonablely 、surprisingly甚至certain 等副词来间接表示认可:
    5. 在甘地的个人日记中,他表现出一些看似临床抑郁症的症状但那些观察过他的人……回应
    6. 这项提议或许有一定价值,我们承认这一点,但我们……回应
    7. 3. 你可以将反对意见或替代方案归因于未具名的来源,这会增加一些可信度:
    8. 人们很容易认为税收应该……(承认这一点但还有另一种解释/论证思路/解释/可能性。
    9. 一些证据(可能/或许/可以/可以/确实)表明我们应该……,承认这一点,但是……回应
    10. 4. 你可以将反对意见或替代方案归因于一般的对话者,从而赋予其更大的分量:
    11. 有些可能/认为/争论/声称/指责/反对碳捕获技术并非……承认但事实上……回应
    12. 尽管[一些研究人员/评论家/学者]认为……,但我们的研究表明……
    13. 请注意,如果您过早或过度贬低您不同意的观点,或者尤其是持有这些观点的人,您可能会削弱您的信誉和论点。
    14. 这种不切实际的说法是……
    15. 一些天真的研究人员声称……
    16. 这位经常粗心大意的历史学家甚至声称……
    17. 批评应该留到回应时再说,而且要针对作品本身,而不是针对个人。
    18. 5. 你可以用自己的声音承认反对意见或替代方案,使用“我”“我们”,被动语态动词,或者使用诸如“诚然”、 “肯定”“当然”等词语或短语,以此承认其某种合理性:
    19. 理解/知道/意识到,进步人士相信……承认但……回应
    20. 热泵比天然气炉更高效,这是事实。然而……
    21. 必须承认,没有确凿证据证明……然而,……
    22. [诚然/当然/承认/属实/毋庸置疑/当然],亚当斯声称……承认然而……回应
    23. 我们[会/可以/可能/也许][说/认为/声称/认为]诸如免费心理健康筛查之类的项目可能会阻碍 ……承认这一点,但这些影响被……回应所抵消。
  2. 1. You can down­play an ob­jec­tion or al­tern­at­ive by in­tro­du­cing it with des­pite, re­gard­less of, or not­with­stand­ing:
    1. [Des­pite/Re­gard­less of/Not­with­stand­ing] the mayor’s claims that she wants to re­duce prop­erty taxes,ac­know­ledg­ment her latest budget pro­pos­als sug­gest that . . .re­sponse
    2. Use al­though, while, and even though in the same way:
    3. [Al­though/While/Even though] Even though some smal­ler and mid­size banks have failed,ac­know­ledg­ment the re­tail bank­ing sec­tor as a whole re­mains strong . . .re­sponse
    4. 2. You can sig­nal an ac­know­ledg­ment in­dir­ectly with seem, ap­pear, may, or could, or with an ad­verb like plaus­ibly, jus­ti­fi­ably, reas­on­ably, sur­pris­ingly, or even cer­tainly:
    5. In his per­sonal journ­als, Gandhi ex­presses what [seem/ap­pear] to be symp­toms of clin­ical de­pres­sion.ac­know­ledg­ment But those who ob­served him . . .re­sponse
    6. This pro­posal [may have/plaus­ibly has] some merit,ac­know­ledg­ment but we . . .re­sponse
    7. 3. You can at­trib­ute an ob­jec­tion or al­tern­at­ive to an un­named source, which gives it a little weight:
    8. It is easy to [think/ima­gine/say/claim/ar­gue] that taxes should . . .ac­know­ledg­ment But there is [an­other/al­tern­at­ive/pos­sible] [ex­plan­a­tion/line of ar­gu­ment/ac­count/pos­sib­il­ity].re­sponse
    9. Some evid­ence [might/may/can/could/does] [sug­gest/in­dic­ate/point to/lead some to think] that we should . . . ,ac­know­ledg­ment but . . .re­sponse
    10. 4. You can at­trib­ute an ob­jec­tion or al­tern­at­ive to a gen­eric in­ter­locutor, giv­ing it more weight:
    11. There are [some/many/a few] who [might/may/could/would] [say/think/ar­gue/claim/charge/ob­ject] that car­bon cap­ture tech­no­lo­gies are not . . .ac­know­ledg­ment But, in fact, . . .re­sponse
    12. Al­though [some re­search­ers/crit­ics/schol­ars] have ar­gued that . . . ,ac­know­ledg­ment our re­search shows . . .
    13. Note that you can weaken your ethos and your case if you pre­ma­turely or ex­cess­ively den­ig­rate views you dis­agree with or, es­pe­cially, those who hold them.
    14. The ill-con­ceived claim that . . .
    15. Some na­ive re­search­ers have claimed that . . .
    16. The of­ten-care­less his­tor­ian has even claimed that . . .
    17. Save cri­ti­cism for the re­sponse, and dir­ect it at the work rather than the per­son.
    18. 5. You can ac­know­ledge an ob­jec­tion or al­tern­at­ive in your own voice, us­ing I or we, a pass­ive verb, or a word or phrase such as ad­mit­tedly, gran­ted, to be sure, and so on, which con­cedes it some valid­ity:
    19. I [un­der­stand/know/real­ize] that pro­gress­ives be­lieve . . . ,ac­know­ledg­ment but . . .re­sponse
    20. It is [true/pos­sible/likely] that heat pumps are more ef­fi­cient than nat­ural-gas fur­naces.ac­know­ledg­ment How­ever, . . .re­sponse
    21. It [must/should/can] be [ad­mit­ted/ac­know­ledged/noted/con­ceded] that no good evid­ence proves that . . .ac­know­ledg­ment Nev­er­the­less, . . .
    22. [Gran­ted/Cer­tainly/Ad­mit­tedly/True/To be sure/Of course], Adams has claimed . . .ac­know­ledg­ment How­ever, . . .re­sponse
    23. We [would/could/can/might/may] [say/ar­gue/claim/think] that pro­grams such as free men­tal health screen­ings might dis­cour­age . . . ,ac­know­ledg­ment but these ef­fects are out­weighed by . . .re­sponse

9.6.2  回应反对意见和替代方案

9.6.2  Re­spond­ing to Ob­jec­tions and Al­tern­at­ives

你的回应可以以表示不同意见的词语或短语开头,例如“但是”“然而”“另一方面”。如果你还没有解释你回应的依据,你可能需要用自身的理由,甚至一个完整的从属论证来支持它。

Be­gin your re­sponse with a term or phrase that sig­nals dis­agree­ment, such as but, how­ever, or on the other hand. If you haven’t already ex­plained the basis of your re­sponse, you may have to sup­port it with its own reason or even with a com­plete sub­or­din­ate ar­gu­ment.

你可以用各种方式回应,从委婉到直率不等。

You can re­spond in ways that range from tact­ful to blunt.

  1. 1. 你可能会后悔的不是信息来源不明,而是自己没有完全理解:
    1. 但是[我不太明白/我很难理解/我不明白] X 是如何声称,当……回应
    2. 2. 或者你可以指出,存在一些尚未解决的问题:
    3. 但这里还有其他问题 ……/但仍然存在 ……响应的问题
    4. 3. 你可以采取更强硬的回应,声称对方承认的立场无关紧要或不可靠:
    5. 但即便这种观点很有见地,承认这一点也[忽略/与当前问题无关/不相干] 。
    6. 但[证据/推理] [不可靠/站不住脚/薄弱]
    7. 但这种论点[站不住脚/站不住脚/混乱/过于简单]
    8. 这种论点忽略了关键因素。
    9. 你必须决定回应的措辞应该有多直白。如果某个替代方案显然是错误的,那就直接指出来,但再次强调,重点要放在工作本身,而不是人身上。
    10. 4. 当你认为其他研究人员似乎没有认真考虑某个问题时,通常应该礼貌地指出来。以下是一些例子:
    11. 史密斯的证据固然重要,我们承认这一点,但我们 必须审视所有可用的证据。
    12. 这解释了部分问题,也承认了这一点,但问题 过于复杂,无法用单一的解释来概括
    13. 这一原则在很多情况下都成立, 并非所有情况都如此
  2. 1. You can re­gret not that the source is un­clear, but that you don’t en­tirely un­der­stand:
    1. But [I do not quite un­der­stand how/I find it dif­fi­cult to see how/It is not clear to me how] X can claim that, when . . .re­sponse
    2. 2. Or you can note that there are un­settled is­sues:
    3. But there are other is­sues here . . . /But there re­mains the prob­lem of . . .re­sponse
    4. 3. You can re­spond more force­fully, claim­ing the ac­know­ledged po­s­i­tion is ir­rel­ev­ant or un­re­li­able:
    5. But as in­sight­ful as that may be,ac­know­ledg­ment it [ig­nores/is ir­rel­ev­ant to/does not bear on] the is­sue at hand.re­sponse
    6. But the [evid­ence/reas­on­ing] is [un­re­li­able/shaky/thin].re­sponse
    7. But the ar­gu­ment is [un­ten­able/weak/con­fused/simplistic].re­sponse
    8. But the ar­gu­ment [over­looks/ig­nores/misses] key factors.re­sponse
    9. You have to de­cide how blunt your re­sponse should be. If an al­tern­at­ive seems ob­vi­ously wrong, say so, but again fo­cus on the work rather than the per­son.
    10. 4. When you think an­other re­searcher seems to have not thought through an is­sue care­fully, you usu­ally should say so civilly. Here are a few pos­sib­il­it­ies:
    11. Smith’s evid­ence is im­port­ant,ac­know­ledg­ment but we must look at all the avail­able evid­ence.re­sponse
    12. That ex­plains some of the prob­lem,ac­know­ledg­ment but it is too com­plex for a single ex­plan­a­tion.re­sponse
    13. That prin­ciple holds in many cases,ac­know­ledg­ment but not in all.re­sponse

▶ 小贴士:三种可预见的争论

▶ Quick Tip: Three Pre­dict­able Dis­agree­ments

你的听众中至少有一部分人可能会想到以下三种替代方案。

There are three kinds of al­tern­at­ives that at least some mem­bers of your audi­ence are likely to think of.

  1. 1.除了你声称的原因之外,还有其他原因。如果你的论点是关于因果关系,请记住,任何结果都不可能只有一个原因,反之亦然。如果你认为 X 导致 Y,每个人都会想到其他原因。蜜蜂种群的崩溃可能是由于杀虫剂的使用,但了解蜜蜂的人还可以列出其他可能的因素,包括栖息地丧失、疾病、转基因作物和寄生虫。因此,如果你只关注众多原因中的一个,也要承认其他原因的存在。如果你觉得听众可能认为某些原因比你给予的更多关注,也要承认这种观点,并解释你为什么弱化了它。
  2. 1. There are causes in ad­di­tion to the one you claim. If your ar­gu­ment is about cause and ef­fect, re­mem­ber that no ef­fect has a single cause and no cause has a single ef­fect. If you ar­gue that X causes Y, every­one will think of other causes. Hon­ey­bee colon­ies may be col­lapsing be­cause of pesti­cide use, but someone know­ledge­able about hon­ey­bees could also list other pos­sible factors, in­clud­ing loss of hab­itat, dis­ease, ge­net­ic­ally mod­i­fied crops, and para­sites. So if you fo­cus on one cause out of many, ac­know­ledge the oth­ers. And if you feel your audi­ence might think that some cause de­serves more at­ten­tion than you give it, ac­know­ledge that view and ex­plain why you de-em­phas­ized it.
  3. 2.那么这些反例呢?无论你的证据多么充分,一些持怀疑态度的听众很可能会想到一些例外情况和反例,他们认为这些反例会削弱你的论点。因此,你必须首先考虑这些反例,承认那些比较合理的反例,尤其是一些生动的例子,然后解释为什么你认为它们不像那些怀疑论者认为的那样具有破坏性。当你对气候变化等变化范围很大的现象提出论断时,尤其要谨慎。不了解统计推理的人会关注异常情况,即使它符合正态分布:迈阿密寒冷的七月四日并不能反驳气候变化的说法,正如蒙特利尔温暖的元旦也不能证明气候变化的说法一样。
  4. 2. What about these counter­examples? No mat­ter how rich your evid­ence, some skep­tical mem­bers of your audi­ence are likely to think of ex­cep­tions and counter­examples that they be­lieve un­der­mine your ar­gu­ment. So you must think of them first, ac­know­ledge the more plaus­ible ones, es­pe­cially if they are vivid, and then ex­plain why you don’t con­sider them as dam­aging as those skep­tics might. Be par­tic­u­larly wary when you make claims about a phe­nomenon with a wide range of vari­ation, such as the cli­mate. People who do not un­der­stand stat­ist­ical reas­on­ing will fo­cus on an ab­er­rant case, even though it falls within a nor­mal dis­tri­bu­tion: a cold Fourth of July in Miami does not dis­prove a claim about cli­mate change, any more than a warm New Year’s Day in Montreal proves it.
  5. 3.我对 X 的定义与你不同。对我来说,X 的意思是……如果读者接受你的定义,他们就更容易接受你的论点:如果你正在研究社交媒体“成瘾”,你的读者必须理解你使用这个词的含义。你是字面意义上的(即社交媒体会像香烟和某些毒品一样引发生理上的渴望),还是比喻意义上的(仅仅是指难以戒除)?你可以找到各种各样的定义,从字典里的几行字到医学参考书里的几页篇幅。但无论这些资料怎么说,人们人们往往会重新定义遇到的术语,以符合自己的观点。大型科技公司的高管辩称,社交媒体不会让人上瘾,因为人们可以随时停止使用;而批评者则认为,社交媒体之所以会让人上瘾,是因为很多人无法停止使用。

    当你的论证依赖于某个术语的含义时,请先定义该术语以支持你的论点,并为你的定义提供辅助论据。不要将字典定义视为权威(切勿以“根据韦氏词典, ‘成瘾’的意思是……”开头)。注意可能存在的、合理的替代定义,并加以说明。如果你使用了一个既有专业术语又有常用含义的术语(例如社会阶层或理论),请说明该常用含义,并解释你为何采用专业术语的含义。反之,如果你没有按照专家预期的方式使用某个专业术语,也请说明这一点,并解释你为何选择其他含义。

  6. 3. I don’t define X as you do. To me, X means . . . It helps an audi­ence ac­cept your claim if they ac­cept your defin­i­tions: if you are re­search­ing “ad­dic­tion” to so­cial me­dia, your audi­ence must un­der­stand what you mean by that term. Do you mean it lit­er­ally (that is, that so­cial me­dia cre­ates phys­ical crav­ings like ci­gar­ettes and some drugs) or just meta­phor­ic­ally (that it’s merely hard to stop us­ing)? You can find defin­i­tions ran­ging from a few lines in a dic­tion­ary to pages in a med­ical ref­er­ence work. But re­gard­less of what those sources say, people tend to re­define terms they en­counter to suit their own views. Big-tech ex­ec­ut­ives have ar­gued that so­cial me­dia is not ad­dict­ive be­cause people are free to stop us­ing it; their crit­ics ar­gue that it is ad­dict­ive be­cause many people can’t.

    When your ar­gu­ment hinges on the mean­ing of a term, define it to sup­port your solu­tion and of­fer a sub­or­din­ate ar­gu­ment for your defin­i­tion. Don’t treat a dic­tion­ary defin­i­tion as au­thor­it­at­ive (never be­gin, “Ac­cord­ing to Web­ster’s, ‘ad­dic­tion’ means . . .”). Be aware of plaus­ible al­tern­at­ive defin­i­tions that you may need to ac­know­ledge. If you use a tech­nical term that also has a com­mon mean­ing (like so­cial class or the­ory), ac­know­ledge that com­mon mean­ing and ex­plain why you have ad­op­ted the tech­nical one. Con­versely, if you do not use a tech­nical term as an ex­pert would ex­pect you to, ac­know­ledge that and ex­plain why you’ve op­ted for an­other mean­ing.

第四部分

Part IV

陈述你的论点

De­liv­er­ing Your Ar­gu­ment

序幕

Pro­logue

计划、写作和思考

Planning, Writing, and Thinking

并非所有研究项目最终都会以正式论文或报告的形式呈现。但如果你的项目最终会以论文或报告的形式呈现,那么你最终需要一个计划。许多作者一开始并没有计划,但随着思路逐渐清晰,他们不得不舍弃一些虽好但无关紧要的页面。另一些人则离不开详尽的提纲、摘要或故事板。还有一些人会在动笔之前,先在脑海中构思出草稿。你需要找到自己开始撰写初稿的方法,但如果你从一开始就通过摘要、分析和评论等方式不断写作,逐步完善论文,就能为最终的写作做好准备。

Not all re­search pro­jects cul­min­ate in a formal pa­per or present­a­tion. But if yours will, you will even­tu­ally need a plan. Many writers be­gin without a plan, but as things be­come clearer, they have to dis­card good but ir­rel­ev­ant pages. Oth­ers can’t get go­ing without elab­or­ate out­lines, sum­mar­ies, or story­boards. And some of us com­pose drafts in our heads well be­fore turn­ing to a ser­i­ous draft in writ­ing. You have to find your own way to start a first draft, but you can pre­pare for that mo­ment if you keep writ­ing your way to­ward the pa­per from the start through sum­mar­ies, ana­lyses, and cri­tiques.

以下是判断你是否准备好制定草案的标准:

Here’s how you know when you’re ready to plan a draft:

  • ▪ 你知道你的受众是谁,他们了解什么,以及他们为什么应该关心你的问题。
  • ▪  You know who your audi­ence is, what they know, and why they should care about your prob­lem.
  • ▪ 你知道你想展现什么样的精神或性格。
  • ▪  You know the kind of ethos or char­ac­ter you want to pro­ject.
  • 你可以用两三句话概括你的问题和答案。
  • ▪  You can sketch your ques­tion and its an­swer in two or three sen­tences.
  • ▪ 您可以概述支持您主张的理由和证据。
  • ▪  You can sketch the reas­ons and evid­ence sup­port­ing your claim.
  • ▪ 你知道你的听众可能不认为某个理由与某个主张相关,并且可以陈述将两者联系起来的论据。
  • ▪  You know when your audi­ence may not see the rel­ev­ance of a reason to a claim and can state the war­rant that con­nects them.
  • ▪ 你知道可能会被提出的问题、替代方案和反对意见,并且你可以回应它们。
  • ▪  You know the ques­tions, al­tern­at­ives, and ob­jec­tions that are likely to be raised, and you can re­spond to them.

即使有了计划并准备开始写作,经验丰富的作家也知道,他们不会一蹴而就地完成一部作品。他们知道自己会走一些弯路,但也会有一些新的发现,甚至可能需要重新思考整个项目。他们也知道,早期草稿中的很多内容最终都不会出现在最终稿中,所以他们会尽早开始,以便留出修改的时间。

Even when they have a plan and are ready to draft, though, ex­per­i­enced writers know that they won’t march straight through to a fin­ished product. They know they’ll make some wrong turns but also some new dis­cov­er­ies and maybe even re­think their whole pro­ject. They also know that a lot of their early draft­ing will not make it into their fi­nal draft, and so they start early enough to leave time for re­vi­sion.

第四部分将指导您完成最终论文或演示文稿的撰写过程。第十章我们将探讨规划和草拟,第十一章将讲解如何组织论证。第十二章我们将讨论引用和整合资料来源这项颇具挑战性的任务。第十三章我们将探讨如何以可视化的形式呈现定量数据,第十四章将讲解如何撰写有效的引言和结论。第十五章我们将介绍如何以清晰简洁的风格进行写作。最后,第十六章我们将讨论如何以演示文稿的形式呈现您的研究成果。

Part IV will lead you through the pro­cess of cre­at­ing your fi­nal pa­per or present­a­tion. In chapter 10, we walk through plan­ning and draft­ing, then in chapter 11 or­gan­iz­ing your ar­gu­ment. In chapter 12, we dis­cuss the de­mand­ing task of in­cor­por­at­ing and cit­ing sources. In chapter 13, we dis­cuss how to present quant­it­at­ive data in visual form, and in chapter 14 how to write ef­fect­ive in­tro­duc­tions and con­clu­sions. In chapter 15, we of­fer prin­ciples for writ­ing in a clear and dir­ect style. Fi­nally, in chapter 16, we dis­cuss how to de­liver your re­search as a present­a­tion.

在此之前,让我们先来探讨一项至关重要的研究活动:与他人分享。正如本书反复强调的,与感兴趣的研究群体分享研究成果是研究的最终目标。正因如此,我们才会提出好的问题,搜寻可靠的数据,并构建和论证一个合理的答案。有时,我们研究成果的读者可能只有一位老师,至少在最初阶段是这样。你或许会想:“我的老师对我的研究课题了如指掌。除了证明自己能做到之外,我写研究报告还能获得什么呢?”其实,老师的职责不仅仅是验证你是否具备研究和写作能力,更重要的是帮助你培养这些技能。此外,我们写作不仅是为了分享研究成果,也是为了在分享之前不断完善它。

Be­fore that, let’s con­sider an es­sen­tial activ­ity of re­search: shar­ing it with oth­ers. As we stress through­out this book, shar­ing the res­ults of our re­search with an in­ter­ested re­search com­munity is the ul­ti­mate goal of re­search. It is why we find a good ques­tion, search for sound data, and for­mu­late and sup­port a good an­swer. Some­times, the audi­ence for our work may be a single teacher, at least ini­tially. You may think, My teacher knows all about my topic. What do I gain from writ­ing up my re­search, other than prov­ing I can do it? Well, your teacher’s job is not just to verify that you can re­search and write but to help you de­velop these skills. An­other an­swer is that we write not only to share our work, but to im­prove it be­fore we do.

除了分享我们的研究成果之外,我们在研究过程中进行写作至少还有三个原因:

Bey­ond shar­ing our re­search, there are at least three reas­ons to write as we re­search:

  • ▪ 写下来以便记住:
    1. 经验丰富的研究人员首先会做笔记来记住他们读过的内容。少数天赋异禀的人能够记住大量信息,但我们大多数人都需要记笔记。否则,你很可能会忘记,或者更糟的是,记错。
    2. ▪ 写作是为了理解:
    3. 写作的第二个原因是发现我们阅读的内容和收集的数据中更大的规律。当你以新的方式整理和重新整理研究结果时,你会发现新的意义。各种关联和复杂情况。即使你能记住所有信息,你也需要帮助才能理清方向各异的论点,梳理错综复杂的关系,并解决专家之间的分歧。
    1. 这就是为什么经验丰富的研究人员不会等到收集到所有需要的数据后才开始写作:他们从项目开始之初就开始写作,以帮助他们以新的方式整理信息。
    2. ▪ 写作以检验你的思考:
    3. 写作的第三个原因是将你的想法从脑海中转移到纸上,这样你才能真正看清自己的想法。几乎我们所有人,无论是学生还是职场人士,都认为自己的想法比写出来之后更有说服力。只有将想法从纷乱的思绪中剥离出来,并以条理清晰的形式呈现出来,你才能真正了解自己的想法有多好,而这种形式也便于你和读者进行研究。
  • ▪  Write to re­mem­ber:
    1. Ex­per­i­enced re­search­ers first write to re­mem­ber what they have read. A few tal­en­ted people can hold in mind masses of in­form­a­tion, but most of us need to take notes on what we read. If you don’t, you are likely to for­get or, worse, mis­re­mem­ber.
    2. ▪  Write to un­der­stand:
    3. A second reason for writ­ing is to see lar­ger pat­terns in what we read and in the data we col­lect. When you ar­range and re­arrange the res­ults of your re­search in new ways, you dis­cover new im­plic­a­tions, con­nec­tions, and com­plic­a­tions. Even if you could hold it all in mind, you would need help to line up ar­gu­ments that pull in dif­fer­ent dir­ec­tions, plot out com­plic­ated re­la­tion­ships, and sort out dis­agree­ments among ex­perts.
    1. That’s why prac­ticed re­search­ers don’t put off writ­ing un­til they have gathered all the data they need: they write from the start of their pro­jects to help them as­semble their in­form­a­tion in new ways.
    2. ▪  Write to test your think­ing:
    3. A third reason to write is to get your thoughts out of your head and onto pa­per, where you will see what you really think. Just about all of us, stu­dents and pro­fes­sion­als alike, be­lieve our ideas are more com­pel­ling than they turn out to be in the cold light of print. You can­not know how good your ideas are un­til you sep­ar­ate them from the swift and muddy flow of thought and fix them in an or­gan­ized form that you—and your read­ers—can study.

我们再补充一个撰写研究报告的理由:写作思考。撰写研究报告最终意味着读者一起思考,并读者而思考。当你为他人写作时,你会理清自己的思路,以便你和读者能够更深入地探索、拓展、整合和理解这些思路。为他人思考比几乎任何其他类型的思考都更加谨慎、更加持久、更加深刻——简而言之,更加深思熟虑。

We of­fer one ad­di­tional reason for writ­ing up your re­search: writ­ing is think­ing. Writ­ing up your re­search is, fi­nally, think­ing with and for your audi­ence. When you write for oth­ers, you un­tangle your ideas so that you and they can ex­plore, ex­pand, com­bine, and un­der­stand them more fully. Think­ing for oth­ers is more care­ful, more sus­tained, more in­sight­ful—in short, more thought­ful—than just about any other kind of think­ing.

10 规划与起草

10  Plan­ning and Draft­ing

一旦你构思好论点,就可以着手撰写了。但经验丰富的写作者都知道,事先制定计划大有裨益。计划能帮助你将论点的各个要素组织成一个既连贯又有说服力的形式。

Once you’ve as­sembled your ar­gu­ment, you might be ready to draft it. But ex­per­i­enced writers know they can be­ne­fit from a plan. A plan helps you or­gan­ize the ele­ments of your ar­gu­ment into a form that will be both co­her­ent and per­suas­ive.

有些领域已经为你完成了一些规划工作,因为它们有标准的论文发表格式。例如,在实验科学领域,读者期望研究报告遵循类似这样的格式:

Some fields do some of the work of plan­ning for you be­cause they have stand­ard forms through which re­search is com­mu­nic­ated. In the ex­per­i­mental sci­ences, for ex­ample, read­ers ex­pect re­search re­ports to fol­low a format some­thing like this:

引言—方法与材料—结果—讨论—结论

In­tro­duc­tion—Meth­ods and Ma­ter­i­als—Res­ults—Dis­cus­sion—Con­clu­sion

如果你的研究领域要求你遵循既定的写作计划,可以向老师索取范例,或者在二手资料中查找。然而,在大多数领域,你必须自行制定写作计划,但该计划仍然必须能够帮助读者找到他们想要的信息。

If your field re­quires you to fol­low a con­ven­tional plan, ask your teacher for a model or find one in a sec­ond­ary source. In most fields, how­ever, you must cre­ate a plan of your own, but that plan must still help read­ers find what they are look­ing for.

10.1  为什么需要正式论文?

10.1  Why a Formal Pa­per?

即使是那些认同写作是学习、思考和理解的重要组成部分的人,也可能仍然会疑惑:为什么我不能用自己的方式写作?为什么我必须满足一个我并未加入(或许也并不想加入)的群体的要求?这些疑虑合情合理,大多数老师也希望学生能更频繁地提出这些问题。然而,如果教育肤浅,无法真正改变你,那么你的教育就会越深入,它就越能改变你,改变你现在的样子,或者你想成为的样子。

Even those who agree that writ­ing is an im­port­ant part of learn­ing, think­ing, and un­der­stand­ing may still won­der, Why can’t I write the way I write? Why must I sat­isfy the de­mands of a com­munity I have not joined (and may not want to)? Such con­cerns are le­git­im­ate, and most teach­ers wish stu­dents would raise them more of­ten. But it would be a shal­low edu­ca­tion that did not change you at all, and the deeper your edu­ca­tion, the more it will change the “you” that you are or want to be.

学习以读者期望的方式写作最重要的原因在于,为他人写作时,你对自己的要求比只为自己写作时更高。当你完善你的想法时,你会发现自己需要付出更多努力。在写作中,这些内容对你来说太过熟悉,以至于你需要帮助才能看清它们,而不是按照你希望的方式去看待它们。当你尝试预判读者必然会提出的批评性问题时,你就能更好地理解自己的作品:你是如何评估你的论据的?你为什么认为它具有相关性?你考虑过哪些观点但最终放弃了?

The most im­port­ant reason to learn to write in ways audi­ences ex­pect is that when you write for oth­ers, you de­mand more of your­self than when you write for your­self alone. By the time you fix your ideas in writ­ing, they are so fa­mil­iar to you that you need help to see them not for what you want them to be but for what they really are. You will un­der­stand your own work bet­ter when you try to an­ti­cip­ate your read­ers’ in­ev­it­able and crit­ical ques­tions: How have you eval­u­ated your evid­ence? Why do you think it’s rel­ev­ant? What ideas have you con­sidered but re­jec­ted?

我们一直鼓励您在写作过程中不断记录,以此来理清思路。但所有研究人员都曾有过这样的经历:为了迎合读者的期望而写作时,他们反而发现了自己思路中的缺陷,或者获得了之前只为自己写作时错过的全新见解。这种情况只有在您设身处地地设想并满足读者的需求和期望时才会发生,尤其是那些见多识广、认真细致的读者。

We have en­cour­aged you to write as you go, as a way of cla­ri­fy­ing your ideas as you de­velop them. But all re­search­ers can re­call mo­ments when, in writ­ing to meet read­ers’ ex­pect­a­tions, they de­tec­ted a flaw in their think­ing or dis­covered a new in­sight they missed when writ­ing just for them­selves. That hap­pens only once you ima­gine and then meet the needs and ex­pect­a­tions of read­ers, es­pe­cially in­formed and care­ful ones.

即便如此,你或许会想,好吧,我的确会为读者写作,但为什么不用我自己的方式来写呢?读者所期待的传统形式不仅仅是你倾倒思想的空容器。它们也允许作者以其他方式可能无法实现的方式进行思考和交流,并且体现了使用这些形式的研究社群的共同价值观。无论你加入哪个研究社群,你都会被期望通过以该社群认可的形式或体裁来展示你的研究,以此表明你理解该社群的实践。这些形式或体裁不仅代表了社群所知的内容,也代表了社群所知的方式

Even so, you might think, OK, I’ll write for read­ers, but why not in my own way? The con­ven­tional forms that read­ers ex­pect are more than just empty ves­sels into which you pour your ideas. They also al­low writers to think and com­mu­nic­ate in ways they might not be able to oth­er­wise, and they em­body the shared val­ues of the re­search com­munit­ies that use them. Whatever re­search com­munity you join, you’ll be ex­pec­ted to show that you un­der­stand its prac­tices by present­ing your re­search in the re­cog­nized forms, or genres, that the com­munity uses to rep­res­ent not just what it knows but also how it knows.

研究型写作的各种体裁——研究论文、学术文章、研究报告、会议论文、法律文书等等——不断发展演变,以满足不同社群的需求。这些体裁相对稳定,使得社群中的新老成员能够通过共同的实践和期望凝聚在一起。一旦你了解了你所在研究社群的写作体裁,你就能更好地回答社群中常见的问题,并理解社群成员关注的重点和原因。

The vari­ous genres of re­search-based writ­ing—re­search pa­per, schol­arly art­icle, re­search re­port, con­fer­ence pa­per, legal brief, and many oth­ers—have evolved to meet the needs of the com­munit­ies that use them. Re­l­at­ively stable, they al­low both new­comers and long­time mem­bers of those com­munit­ies to come to­gether through shared prac­tices and ex­pect­a­tions. Once you know the genres that be­long to your par­tic­u­lar re­search com­munity, you’ll be bet­ter able to an­swer your com­munity’s pre­dict­able ques­tions and un­der­stand what its mem­bers care about and why.

但你或许会想,我为什么要采用不属于我的语言和形式?你们难道不是想把我变成和你们一样的学者吗?如果我按照你们期望的方式写作,我就有可能失去自我。我们再次承认,这种对身份认同的担忧是合理的。并会发生变化。然而,我们并不认为学习运用某一领域的传统方法就意味着放弃个人身份。恰恰相反,它能让你以他人能够理解的方式分享你的想法和观点。

But again, you might think, Why should I ad­opt lan­guage and forms that are not mine? Aren’t you just try­ing to turn me into an aca­demic like yourselves? If I write as you ex­pect me to, I risk los­ing my iden­tity. And again, we ac­know­ledge the le­git­im­acy of such con­cerns about iden­tity and change. How­ever, we do not be­lieve that learn­ing to use the con­ven­tional forms of a field re­quires you to sur­render your per­sonal iden­tity. Quite the op­pos­ite. It al­lows you to share your ideas and per­spect­ives in ways that can be heard by oth­ers.

事实上,当你学习某个领域或专业的写作体裁时,你就成为了该研究社群的一员。从这个意义上讲,你的学习改变了。但也要明白,当你使用这些体裁时,你也在改变它们,无论这种改变多么细微。许多研究型写作形式如今与一百年前、五十年前,甚至(在某些领域)十年前都截然不同,而且随着研究社群着手解决新问题、采用新方法、利用新的通信技术以及吸纳新成员和新的认知方式,这些写作形式也在不断发展演变。

In fact, as you learn to write the genres of a field or pro­fes­sion, you be­come a mem­ber of that re­search com­munity. In that sense, your learn­ing changes you. But know, too, that as you use these forms, you also change them, how­ever in­cre­ment­ally. Many forms of re­search-based writ­ing look very dif­fer­ent today from how they looked one hun­dred, fifty, or (in some fields) ten years ago, and they con­tinue to evolve as re­search com­munit­ies tackle new prob­lems, ad­opt new meth­ods, cap­it­al­ize on new com­mu­nic­a­tion tech­no­lo­gies, and in­cor­por­ate new mem­bers and new ways of know­ing.

10.2  论文规划

10.2  Plan­ning Your Pa­per

10.2.1  拟定工作引言

10.2.1  Sketch a Work­ing In­tro­duc­tion

人们常建议作家最后再写引言,但实际上,我们大多数人都需要一个初步的引言来帮助我们走上正确的写作方向。因此,你需要准备两份引言:一份是现在写给自己看的草稿,另一份是之后写给读者的最终版本。最终的引言通常包含三个部分(参见第14章),所以你最好先画个草稿来预想一下。如果你已经按照我们之前的建议,那么你应该已经在故事板第一页的底部写下了你的主要论点。现在,请在它上面的页面上填写引出这个论点的内容。

Writers are of­ten ad­vised to write their in­tro­duc­tions last, but most of us need a work­ing in­tro­duc­tion to start us on the right track. Ex­pect to write your in­tro­duc­tion twice, then: a sketch for now, for your­self, and a fi­nal one later for your read­ers. That fi­nal in­tro­duc­tion will usu­ally have three parts (see chapter 14), so you might as well sketch your work­ing in­tro­duc­tion to an­ti­cip­ate them. If you have fol­lowed our earlier sug­ges­tion, you have writ­ten your main claim at the bot­tom of the first page of your story­board. Now fill in the page above it with what leads up to that claim.

1. 背景(读者现在的想法或行为)

1. Con­text (What Your Read­ers Now Think or Do)

由于引言的核心是你的研究问题,你必须首先向读者提供一些你的论点将会颠覆的东西。

Since the core of your in­tro­duc­tion is your re­search ques­tion, you must first of­fer read­ers some­thing your ar­gu­ment will dis­rupt.

简要陈述你的论点将挑战的观点或现状。例如,你可以提出一个关于阿波罗登月任务的问题,引导读者思考它作为美国科技先进国家象征的意义。你可以从以下角度阐述这一背景:

Briefly state a be­lief or con­di­tion your ar­gu­ment will chal­lenge. For ex­ample, you might set up a ques­tion about the Apollo mis­sion to the moon by ask­ing read­ers to think about its status as a sym­bol of Amer­ica’s iden­tity as a tech­no­lo­gic­ally ad­vanced na­tion. You can state that con­text in terms of

  • ▪ 你在开始研究之前所相信的(我过去认为……)。
    1. 我一直认为阿波罗计划是美国创造力的象征。
    2. ▪ 其他人的想法(大多数人认为……)。
    3. 阿波罗计划不仅一直被认为是人类历史上的标志性成就,也被认为是美国在科技领域领先地位的象征。
    4. ▪ 事件或情况(事件似乎表明的是……)。
    5. 在人类首次登上月球半个世纪之后,阿波罗计划仍然是美国民族自豪感的象征。
    6. ▪ 其他研究人员的发现(研究人员已经表明……)。
    7. 研究人员普遍认为,阿波罗计划加速了各个行业的技术创新。
  • ▪  what you be­lieved be­fore you began your re­search (I used to think . . .).
    1. I al­ways thought of the Apollo mis­sion as a sym­bol of Amer­ican in­genu­ity.
    2. ▪  what oth­ers be­lieve (Most people think . . .).
    3. The Apollo mis­sion has al­ways been re­cog­nized not only as a sig­na­ture achieve­ment in hu­man his­tory but also as a sym­bol of Amer­ica’s pree­m­in­ence in tech­no­logy.
    4. ▪  an event or situ­ation (What events seem to show is . . .).
    5. Half a cen­tury after hu­man be­ings first set foot on the moon, the Apollo mis­sion re­mains a sym­bol of Amer­ican na­tional pride.
    6. ▪  what other re­search­ers have found (Re­search­ers have shown . . .).
    7. Re­search­ers gen­er­ally agree that the Apollo mis­sion ac­cel­er­ated tech­no­lo­gical in­nov­a­tion across a range of in­dus­tries.

当然,你不可能在一篇论文中使用所有这些方法;在引言部分,你应该选择一到两种最能引出论点的方法。如果你在此时需要总结文献,那么只使用那些你打算扩展、修改或修正其结论的文献。

Of course, you can’t use all of these ap­proaches in one pa­per; you would choose one or two for your in­tro­duc­tion that best set up your ar­gu­ment. And if you sum­mar­ize sources at this point, use only those sources whose find­ings you in­tend to ex­tend, modify, or cor­rect.

2. 问题(读者需要知道但却不知道的事情,以及为什么这很重要)

2. Prob­lem (What Your Read­ers Need to Know but Don’t, and Why That Mat­ters)

我们在第一部分中提到,研究问题回应研究疑问,它包含两部分:条件及其成本或后果,后者决定了条件的意义。请记住,研究问题可以是概念性的,也可以是实践性的(参见2.1);这里我们以概念性问题为例。在引言中,将问题或条件表述为一个引人深思的陈述,说明你的研究群体中存在哪些未知或不理解之处。可以使用“但是”、 “然而”、不过”类似的词语开头。

A re­search prob­lem, we noted in part I, re­sponds to a re­search ques­tion and con­sists of two parts: a con­di­tion and its costs or con­sequences, which es­tab­lish its sig­ni­fic­ance. Re­search prob­lems, re­mem­ber, can be con­cep­tual or prac­tical (see 2.1); here we take as an ex­ample a con­cep­tual prob­lem. In your in­tro­duc­tion, ex­press that ques­tion or con­di­tion as a mo­tiv­at­ing state­ment about what those in your re­search com­munity don’t know or un­der­stand. Start with but, yet, how­ever, or some­thing sim­ilar.

研究问题:

阿波罗计划是如何成为美国国家认同的象征的?

动机陈述:

我一直认为阿波罗计划是美国国家认同的象征。登月是人类历史上一个独特的时刻,也是美国历史上一个重要的时刻。我们几乎了解阿波罗号如何多次登上月球的全部细节,即便如此,我们仍然无法完全理解为什么这项任务对美国国家认同如此重要。

Re­search Ques­tion:

How did the Apollo mis­sion be­come a sym­bol of Amer­ican na­tional iden­tity?

Mo­tiv­at­ing State­ment:

I al­ways thought of the Apollo mis­sion as a sym­bol of Amer­ica’s na­tional iden­tity. A unique mo­ment in hu­man his­tory, the moon land­ing was also a ma­jor mo­ment in Amer­ican his­tory. We know al­most everything about how Apollo got to the moon, sev­eral times over,con­text yet even today we don’t fully un­der­stand why this par­tic­u­lar mis­sion was deemed so cent­ral to Amer­ican na­tional iden­tity.mo­tiv­at­ing state­ment

作者们会用多种方式引入动机性陈述。阅读时,注意你所引用的资料是如何做到这一点的,然后加以借鉴。

Writers in­tro­duce a mo­tiv­at­ing state­ment in many ways. As you read, note how your sources do it, then use them as mod­els.

接下来,如果可以的话,请解释一下你提出的问题的意义,回答“如果我们找不到答案会怎样?”这个问题。在第一部分,我们说过这是任何研究项目中最重要的问题,因为它揭示了你的项目对你而言为何重要,以及对其他人而言为何也重要。你的引言是你向读者解释这一意义的最佳机会:

Next, if you can, ex­plain the sig­ni­fic­ance of your ques­tion by an­swer­ing So what if we don’t find out? In part I, we said this was the most im­port­ant ques­tion you need to an­swer about any re­search pro­ject, be­cause it gets at why your pro­ject mat­ters to you and should mat­ter to oth­ers. Your in­tro­duc­tion is your best op­por­tun­ity to ex­plain this sig­ni­fic­ance to your read­ers:

如果我们能够解释阿波罗计划如何成为美国国家认同的象征,我们就能更好地理解特定历史事件如何更普遍地发挥国家认同象征的作用。

If we can ex­plain how the Apollo mis­sion be­came a sym­bol of Amer­ican na­tional iden­tity, we can bet­ter un­der­stand how spe­cific his­tor­ical events func­tion as sym­bols of na­tional iden­tity more gen­er­ally.

在撰写初稿时,你可能会发现很难找到“那又怎样?”这个问题的答案。如果是这样,不要纠结于此。你可以在修改时再回头思考这个问题。

When you are draft­ing, you may find the an­swer to So what? hard to ima­gine. If so, don’t dwell on it. You can re­turn to that ques­tion as you re­vise.

3. 回应(读者应该了解的内容)

3. Re­sponse (What Your Read­ers Should Know)

修改你的论点,使其能够用与你解释背景和问题时所用的措辞相一致的语言来回答问题:

Re­vise your claim to an­swer the ques­tion in terms that match those you used to ex­plain the con­text and prob­lem:

阿波罗登月计划不仅彰显了美国的创造力和科技实力,更因为它战胜了太空竞赛的对手苏联,成为美国民族认同的象征。对美国人来说,任务的成功象征着他们生活方式的优越性。

The Apollo mis­sion to land hu­man be­ings on the moon served as a sym­bol of na­tional iden­tity not only be­cause it cel­eb­rated Amer­ican in­genu­ity and tech­no­lo­gical prowess but be­cause it did so against the So­viet Union, a com­pet­itor with the United States in the space race. A suc­cess­ful mis­sion sym­bol­ized, for Amer­ic­ans, the su­peri­or­ity of their way of life.

如果做不到这一点,至少要给你的论文一个“出发点”,描述一下你的论文如何回答你的问题:

If you can’t do that, at least give your pa­per a “launch­ing point” by de­scrib­ing how your pa­per will an­swer your ques­tion:

本文首先概述了阿波罗计划的政治背景,然后考察了当时印刷媒体对该计划的报道……

This pa­per be­gins by sum­mar­iz­ing the polit­ical con­text sur­round­ing the Apollo mis­sion. It then ex­am­ines treat­ments of the mis­sion in con­tem­por­ary print me­dia . . .

虽然只是粗略的引言,但足以让你入门。在最终稿中,当你真正写出论点之后,你将对引言进行充实和完善(参见第14章)。

Sketchy as it is, this in­tro­duc­tion is enough to get you star­ted. In your fi­nal draft, once you have ac­tu­ally writ­ten your ar­gu­ment, you’ll flesh out and re­fine your in­tro­duc­tion (see chapter 14).

10.2.2  确定贯穿整篇论文的关键术语

10.2.2  Identify Key Terms That Will Run Through Your Whole Pa­per

为了使文章条理清晰,读者必须能够识别贯穿全文的几个关键概念。但如果你对这些概念的表述五花八门,他们可能就无法理解。因此,请选择一些你打算反复使用的术语来指代你的概念。务必谨慎选择这些术语,因为它们既会反映你对读者的预期,也会影响读者对你文章的反应。例如,如果你面向的是广泛的读者群体,你可能会选择“果蝇”(fruit fly)而不是“黑腹果蝇”(Drosophila melanogaster)。有些作者担心术语重复过多。这种担忧不无道理,但你会比读者更明显地注意到这些重复,因为你已经清楚自己想要表达什么。事实上,经过深思熟虑的重复可以成为帮助读者理解你论点的有效策略。

For your pa­per to seem co­her­ent, read­ers must re­cog­nize a few key con­cepts run­ning through its parts. But they may not if you refer to those con­cepts in many dif­fer­ent ways. So choose terms for your con­cepts that you will use with some con­sist­ency. Make these choices care­fully be­cause your terms will both sig­nal how you ima­gine your audi­ence and af­fect how your audi­ence re­sponds to you. For ex­ample, if you are writ­ing for a broad audi­ence, you might opt for fruit fly rather than Dro­so­phila melano­gaster. Some writers worry about re­peat­ing terms too much. That’s fair, but you will no­tice that re­pe­ti­tion more than your read­ers will be­cause you already know what you are try­ing to say. In fact, thought­ful re­pe­ti­tion can be an ef­fect­ive strategy for help­ing read­ers fol­low your ar­gu­ment.

在你的笔记或故事板中查找与你的关键概念相关的术语,尤其是在你阐述论点及其意义的地方。尝试找出四五个最重要的术语。例如,假设你正在撰写一篇关于电子舞曲混音的文章。你的文章可能以“合理使用”这一法律概念为中心主题。但如果你在文章中使用过多相关术语,例如版权、创造力、合理使用自由、知识产权、混音、版税等,读者可能会忽略这一点。这些术语数量过多,反而会掩盖你的核心主题。

Look in your notes or story­board for terms that name your key con­cepts, es­pe­cially where you state your claim and its sig­ni­fic­ance. Try to iden­tity the four or five terms that seem most im­port­ant. Sup­pose, for ex­ample, that you are writ­ing about mix­ing in elec­tronic dance mu­sic. Your pa­per might have as one or­gan­iz­ing theme the legal concept of “fair use.” But read­ers might miss it if you use too many re­lated terms in your pa­per: copy­right, cre­ativ­ity, fair use, free­dom, in­tel­lec­tual prop­erty, re­mix, roy­alty. In their sheer num­ber, they might ob­scure your lar­ger theme.

在撰写过程中,你可能会发现新的主题,也会放弃一些旧的主题,但如果你能始终牢记最重要的术语和概念,你的文章就会更加连贯。

As you draft, you may find new themes and drop some old ones, but you’ll write more co­her­ently if you keep your most im­port­ant terms and con­cepts in the front of your mind.

10.2.3  规划论文正文

10.2.3  Plan the Body of Your Pa­per

  1. 1.勾勒背景并定义术语。在故事板的介绍页之后,添加一页来概述必要的背景信息。你可能需要定义术语、更详细地回顾研究、阐明你的问题、设定项目范围、将你的问题置于更广阔的历史或社会背景中等等。务必言简意赅。
  2. 1. Sketch back­ground and define terms. After the in­tro­duc­tion page of your story­board, add a page on which you out­line ne­ces­sary back­ground. You may have to define terms, re­view re­search in more de­tail, spell out your prob­lem, set lim­its on your pro­ject, loc­ate your prob­lem in a lar­ger his­tor­ical or so­cial con­text, and so on. Keep it short.
  3. 2.为论文的每个主要部分创建一个故事板页面。在每个页面的顶部,写下该部分其余内容所支持、展开或解释的观点。通常,这将是支持你主要论点的理由。
  4. 2. Cre­ate a story­board page for each ma­jor sec­tion of your pa­per. At the top of each of these pages, write the point that the rest of that sec­tion sup­ports, de­vel­ops, or ex­plains. Usu­ally, this will be a reason sup­port­ing your main claim.
  5. 3.找到合适的顺序。当你展开论证时(见7.1),你按照自己认为合理的方式排列了各个部分。现在,在规划时,你必须找到一个对读者来说也合理的顺序。考虑以下选项。前两个选项与你的主题相关:
    • ▪  分部分进行。如果你能将你的主题分解成各个部分,你就可以依次处理每个部分,但你仍然必须按照这些部分的功能关系、层级关系等方式对它们进行排序,以帮助读者理解它们。
    • ▪  按时间顺序。这是最简单的顺序:从早到晚或从原因到结果。

      接下来的六个选项是根据读者的知识和理解能力而定的。

    • ▪  由短到长,由简到繁。大多数读者倾向于先处理简单的问题,然后再去解决更复杂的问题。
    • ▪  从熟悉到陌生。大多数读者更倾向于先阅读熟悉的话题,然后再阅读新的话题。
    • ▪  从争议较小到争议较大。大多数读者更容易从同意的观点过渡到不同意的观点。
    • ▪  从重要到次要(或反之亦然)。大多数读者更喜欢先阅读更重要的理由(但如果这些理由放在最后,可能会更有影响力)。
    • ▪  先理解前面的内容,再理解后面的内容。读者可能需要先理解一些事件、原理、定义等等,才能理解其他内容。
    • ▪  先进行总体分析,再进行具体应用。读者可能需要先理解你的总体立场,才能明白你是如何将其应用于具体的文本、事件、情境等等的。
  6. 3. Find a suit­able or­der. When you de­veloped your ar­gu­ment (see 7.1), you ordered its parts in a way that made sense to you. Now, as you plan, you must fig­ure out an or­der that will make sense to your read­ers. Con­sider these op­tions. The first two are based on your topic:
    • ▪  Part-by-part. If you can break your topic into its parts, you can deal with each in turn, but you must still or­der those parts in a way that will help read­ers un­der­stand them—by their func­tional re­la­tion­ships, hier­archy, and so on.
    • ▪  Chro­no­lo­gical. This is the simplest: earlier to later or cause to ef­fect.

      These next six op­tions are based on your read­ers’ know­ledge and un­der­stand­ing.

    • ▪  Short to long, simple to com­plex. Most read­ers prefer to deal with simple is­sues be­fore they work through more com­plex ones.
    • ▪  More fa­mil­iar to less fa­mil­iar. Most read­ers prefer to read about more fa­mil­iar is­sues be­fore they read about new ones.
    • ▪  Less con­test­able to more con­test­able. Most read­ers move more eas­ily from what they agree with to what they don’t.
    • ▪  More im­port­ant to less im­port­ant (or vice versa). Most read­ers prefer to read more im­port­ant reas­ons first (but those reas­ons may have more im­pact if they come last).
    • ▪  Earlier un­der­stand­ing to pre­pare for later un­der­stand­ing. Read­ers may have to un­der­stand some events, prin­ciples, defin­i­tions, and so on be­fore they can un­der­stand some­thing else.
    • ▪  Gen­eral ana­lysis fol­lowed by spe­cific ap­plic­a­tions. Read­ers may have to un­der­stand the out­lines of your over­all po­s­i­tion be­fore they can fol­low how you ap­ply it to spe­cific texts, events, situ­ations, and so on.

这些原则通常相辅相成:读者容易理解且认同的内容往往简短易懂。但这些原则也可能相互冲突:你可能需要决定是直接切入主题,还是先提供必要的背景信息。无论你选择哪种顺序,务必确保它能满足读者的需求,而不仅仅是反映你产生想法的过程。

Of­ten these prin­ciples co­oper­ate: what read­ers agree with and eas­ily un­der­stand might also be short and fa­mil­iar. But these prin­ciples may also con­flict: you may have to de­cide whether to lead with your main point or lead up to it with ne­ces­sary back­ground. Whatever or­der you choose, be sure it ad­dresses your read­ers’ needs and doesn’t just re­flect how your ideas oc­curred to you.

最后,在开始撰写初稿时,每个章节或段落的开头都要用一个词或短语来表明你选择的顺序:首先……,其次……  ;后来……,最后……  ;更重要的是……  ;一个更复杂的问题是……  ;因此……。如果这些提示语感觉不太自然,也不用担心。你可以稍后修改甚至删除它们。

Fi­nally, when you start to draft, be­gin each sec­tion or para­graph with a word or phrase that sig­nals the or­der you chose: First . . . , second . . . ; Later . . . , fi­nally . . . ; More im­port­ant . . . ; A more com­plex is­sue is . . . ; As a res­ult . . . Don’t worry if these sig­nals feel awk­ward. You can re­vise or even de­lete them later.

10.2.4  规划各章节和子章节

10.2.4  Plan Each Sec­tion and Sub­sec­tion

  1. 1.在每个章节和子章节中突出显示关键术语。正如你的论文需要引言一样,它的每个章节也需要。我们之前已经告诉过你,要在每个章节的提纲页面顶部阐明其要点。现在,就像你挑选了贯穿整篇论文的关键术语一样,在你的提纲中突出显示那些能够将每个章节与其他章节区分开来的关键术语。如果你找不到这样的术语,请仔细观察该章节对整体的贡献。它可能贡献甚微,甚至毫无贡献。

    在撰写论文时,请使用这些关键词为每个章节创建标题。如果您所在领域的论文不使用标题,您可以从最终稿中删除它们。

  2. 1. High­light the key terms in each sec­tion and sub­sec­tion. Just as your pa­per needs an in­tro­duc­tion, so does each of its sec­tions. Earlier we told you to state the point of each sec­tion at the top of its story­board page. Now, just as you picked out key terms to run through your whole pa­per, high­light in your story­board the ones that uniquely dis­tin­guish each sec­tion from all the oth­ers. If you can­not find such terms, look closely at how that sec­tion con­trib­utes to the whole. It may of­fer little or noth­ing.

    As you draft, use these key terms to cre­ate head­ings for each sec­tion. If pa­pers in your field do not use head­ings, you can re­move them from your last draft.

  3. 2.指明证据、搜查令、确认和回应以及摘要的放置位置。将这些部分添加到每个章节的故事板页面中。它们可能还需要各自的论点来支撑。
    • ▪  证据。大多数章节主要由支持论点的证据构成。如果您有多个证据支持同一个论点,请以读者易于理解的方式进行排列。注意您可能需要解释证据的地方——证据的来源、可靠性以及它如何支持论点。
    • ▪  致谢与回应。设想读者可能会反对的观点,然后概述回应内容。回应可以包含子论点。至少要提出论点并给出理由(例如,“一些研究人员认为……,但我认为……因为……”)。他们可能还会提供证据,甚至对你的第一个回应提出第二个假设性的回应。
    • ▪  论据。一般来说,如果需要陈述论据,应在提出论点和支持理由之前先陈述。例如,如果以下论证是面向非伊丽莎白时代社会史专家,则需要提供论据:

    由于1580年牛津大学的大多数学生签署文件时只用了自己的名字和姓氏,因此他们中的大多数必定是平民

    如果用搜查令的形式提出这个论点,那么对所有人(甚至专家)来说都会更清楚:

    在十六世纪末的英国,如果某人并非绅士而是平民,他不会在签名后加上“先生”或“先生”的头衔。 1580年,牛津大学的大多数学生签署文件时只用自己的名字和姓氏,因此他们中的大多数必定是平民。

    如果你认为读者可能会质疑你的论证,请简要阐述一个支持该论证的论点。如果读者可能认为你的理由或主张并非该论证的有效例证,请简要阐述一个证明其有效性的论点。

  4. 2. In­dic­ate where to put evid­ence, war­rants, ac­know­ledg­ments and re­sponses, and sum­mar­ies. Add these parts to the story­board page for each sec­tion. They may, in turn, need to be sup­por­ted by their own ar­gu­ments.
    • ▪  Evid­ence. Most sec­tions con­sist primar­ily of evid­ence sup­port­ing reas­ons. If you have sev­eral pieces of evid­ence sup­port­ing the same reason, ar­range them in a way that will make sense to read­ers. Note where you may have to ex­plain your evid­ence—where it came from, why it’s re­li­able, ex­actly how it sup­ports a reason.
    • ▪  Ac­know­ledg­ments and re­sponses. Ima­gine what read­ers might ob­ject to, then out­line a re­sponse. Re­sponses may be sub-ar­gu­ments with at least a claim and reas­ons (Some re­search­ers have said . . . , but I be­lieve . . . be­cause . . .). They may in­clude evid­ence and even a second re­sponse to an ima­gined re­sponse to your first re­sponse.
    • ▪  War­rants. Gen­er­ally speak­ing, if you need to state a war­rant, state it be­fore you of­fer its claim and sup­port­ing reason. The fol­low­ing ar­gu­ment, for ex­ample, needs a war­rant if it’s in­ten­ded for non-ex­perts in Eliza­bethan so­cial his­tory:

    Since most stu­dents at Ox­ford Uni­ver­sity in 1580 signed doc­u­ments with only their first and last names,reason most of them must have been com­mon­ers.claim

    That ar­gu­ment is clearer to every­one (even ex­perts) when in­tro­duced by a war­rant:

    In late six­teenth-cen­tury Eng­land, when someone was not a gen­tle­man but a com­moner, he did not add “Mr.” or “Esq.” to his sig­na­ture.war­rant Most stu­dents at Ox­ford Uni­ver­sity in 1580 signed doc­u­ments with only their first and last names,reason so most of them must have been com­mon­ers.claim

    If you think read­ers might ques­tion your war­rant, sketch an ar­gu­ment to sup­port it. If read­ers might think that your reason or claim isn’t a valid in­stance of the war­rant, sketch an ar­gu­ment show­ing that it is.

如果你的草稿篇幅较长,且包含大量日期、人名、事件或数字等“事实”,你可以在每个主要章节的结尾简要总结一下论证的进展。你已经论证了哪些内容?你的论证目前为止如何?如果在最终稿中这些总结显得生硬,那就删掉它们。

If your draft is long and “fact-heavy” with dates, names, events, or num­bers, you might briefly sum­mar­ize the pro­gress of your ar­gu­ment at the end of each ma­jor sec­tion. What have you es­tab­lished? How does your ar­gu­ment shape up so far? If in your fi­nal draft those sum­mar­ies seem clumsy, cut them.

10.2.5  拟定工作结论

10.2.5  Sketch a Work­ing Con­clu­sion

在故事板结论页的顶部再次陈述你的观点。之后,如果可以的话,用草图的形式概括其意义(对“那又怎样? ”的另一种回答)。

State your point again at the top of a con­clu­sion page of your story­board. After it, if you can, sketch its sig­ni­fic­ance (an­other an­swer to So what?).

当你计划好引言、正文和结论并开始……在撰写草稿的过程中,你可能会发现你收集的所有笔记都用不上。但这并不意味着你浪费了时间。正如欧内斯特·海明威所说,当你舍弃那些你明知不错但不如你保留下来的精彩内容时,你就知道自己写得不错了。

As you plan your in­tro­duc­tion, body, and con­clu­sion and be­gin to draft, you may dis­cover that you can’t use all the notes you col­lec­ted. That doesn’t mean you wasted time. As Ern­est Hem­ing­way said, you know you’re writ­ing well when you dis­card stuff you know is good—but not as good as what you keep.

10.3  避免三种常见但有缺陷的模式

10.3  Avoid­ing Three Com­mon but Flawed Pat­terns

并非所有论文组织模式都同样有效。我们最初的尝试往往过于贴近我们作为研究者和写作者的思考和活动,以至于无法满足读者的需求。以下列举三种无益的组织模式:

Not all pat­terns for or­gan­iz­ing your pa­per are equally good. Our first ef­forts of­ten so closely track our think­ing and activ­it­ies as re­search­ers and writers that they don’t serve the in­terests of our read­ers. Here are three un­help­ful or­gan­iz­a­tional pat­terns:

  1. 1.不要将论文组织成叙述你思考过程的方式。这种模式在初稿阶段无可厚非,甚至很自然,因为你还在思考自己的想法和想要表达的内容。但这对于读者来说帮助不大。读者想知道你的观点以及相信它的理由,而不是你一路走来经历的每一个步骤、每一次错误的尝试、每一次的反复、每一次的转变,以及每一个想法(或心意)的改变。如果读者不得不费力地阅读你项目的来龙去脉才能找到你留到最后才提出的要点,他们会感到非常恼火。

    为了检验你的草稿是否存在这个问题,请查找那些并非着重于研究结果,而是描述研究方法或思考过程的句子。例如,“第一个问题是……”  ;“然后我比较了……”  ;“最后,我得出结论……”。如果你发现这类句子不止几个,那么你可能并非在论证某个观点,而是在讲述你得出结论的过程。如果是这样,请围绕论证的核心要素——你的观点以及支持该观点的理由和证据——重新组织你的文章。

  2. 1. Do not or­gan­ize your pa­per as a nar­rat­ive of your think­ing. This pat­tern is fine and even nat­ural in early drafts, as you are still fig­ur­ing out what you think and want to say. But it’s less help­ful to read­ers, who want to know your point and reas­ons for be­liev­ing it, but not ne­ces­sar­ily every step, false start, re­versal, and change of mind (or heart) you ex­per­i­enced along the way. Read­ers be­come es­pe­cially an­noyed when they have to slog through the his­tory of your pro­ject to get to a main point you have saved for the end.

    To test your draft for this prob­lem, look for sen­tences that refer not to the res­ults of your re­search but to how you did it or to what you were think­ing. You see signs of this in lan­guage like The first is­sue was . . . ; Then I com­pared . . . ; Fi­nally, I con­clude . . . If you dis­cover more than a few such sen­tences, you may not be sup­port­ing a claim but rather telling the story of how you ar­rived at it. If so, re­or­gan­ize your pa­per around the core ele­ments of your ar­gu­ment—your claim and the reas­ons and evid­ence sup­port­ing it.

  3. 2.不要将论文拼凑成各种资料的拼贴。这种模式,如同前文所述,在初稿阶段或许有用。这取决于你的写作方式:有些研究者喜欢先“梳理”证据,然后再围绕这些证据展开论述;另一些研究者则更倾向于先聚焦于自己的想法,之后再“补充”证据。但归根结底,读者想要的是你的分析,而不是资料的罗列。初学者常常犯的错误是,将引文、摘要和对资料的粗略改写拼凑成一篇缺乏自身思考的“拼贴”。这样的“拼贴”并不能反映出作者的真正意图。写作方式“全是总结,没有分析”容易招致指控。如果你大部分研究都在网上进行,风险尤其高,因为从资料来源复制粘贴非常容易。经验丰富的读者一眼就能识破拼凑式写作,你可能会面临抄袭的指控(参见12.9)。
  4. 2. Do not as­semble your pa­per as a patch­work of your sources. This pat­tern, like the pre­ced­ing one, can be use­ful in early drafts. It de­pends on how you write: some re­search­ers like to “block out” their evid­ence and then flesh out their ar­gu­ments around them. Oth­ers prefer to fo­cus first on their own ideas and “fill in” their evid­ence later. But ul­ti­mately, read­ers want your ana­lysis, not a sum­mary of your sources. Be­gin­ning re­search­ers go wrong when they stitch to­gether quo­ta­tions, sum­mar­ies, and loose para­phrases of sources into a patch­work that re­flects little of their own think­ing. Such “patch writ­ing” in­vites the charge This is all sum­mary, no ana­lysis. It is a par­tic­u­lar risk if you do most of your re­search on­line, be­cause it is so easy to cut-and-paste from your sources. Ex­per­i­enced read­ers re­cog­nize patch writ­ing, and you risk a charge of pla­gi­ar­ism (see 12.9).
  5. 3.不要直接照搬作业的语言。虽然作业似乎提供了一个现成的组织结构,但即使是初稿,照搬也存在风险。如果你在第一段就重复作业的语言,老师可能会认为你没有贡献任何自己的想法,例如:
    1. 作业:不同的知觉理论对感觉输入的处理过程中认知中介作用的重视程度不同。一些理论认为输入信息无需中介即可到达大脑;另一些理论则认为感受器官会受到认知的影响。请比较两种视觉、听觉或触觉知觉理论,它们对这一问题持有不同的观点。
    2. 论文 开篇 段落:不同的视觉感知理论家对认知中介在处理感觉输入中的作用赋予不同的权重。本文将比较两种视觉感知理论,其中一种……
    3. 如果你的作业列出了一系列需要探讨的问题,你应该按照最有利于你向读者阐述论点的顺序来论述这些问题,而不是按照作业中给出的顺序。例如,如果作业要求你“比较弗洛伊德和荣格关于想象力和无意识的观点”,你就不必将论文分成两部分,第一部分论述弗洛伊德,第二部分论述荣格。这种组织方式往往会导致两篇互不相关的总结。相反,你应该尝试将主题分解成概念部分,例如无意识和想象力的要素、它们的定义等等;然后以对读者有用的方式排列这些部分。
  6. 3. Do not map your pa­per dir­ectly on to the lan­guage of an as­sign­ment. While an as­sign­ment might seem to provide a ready-made or­gan­iz­a­tional scheme, ad­opt­ing it is risky, even in early drafts. If you echo the lan­guage of your as­sign­ment in your first para­graph, your teacher may think that you’ve con­trib­uted no ideas of your own, as in this ex­ample:
    1. AS­SIGN­MENT: Dif­fer­ent the­or­ies of per­cep­tion give dif­fer­ent weight to cog­nit­ive me­di­ation in pro­cessing sens­ory in­put. Some claim that in­put reaches the brain un­me­di­ated; oth­ers that re­cept­ive or­gans are sub­ject to cog­nit­ive in­flu­ence. Com­pare two the­or­ies of visual, aural, or tact­ile per­cep­tion that take dif­fer­ent po­s­i­tions on this mat­ter.
    2. PA­PER’S OPEN­ING PARA­GRAPH: Dif­fer­ent the­or­ists of visual per­cep­tion give dif­fer­ent weight to the role of cog­nit­ive me­di­ation in pro­cessing sens­ory in­put. In this pa­per I will com­pare two the­or­ies of visual per­cep­tion, one of which . . .
    3. If your as­sign­ment lists a series of is­sues to cover, ad­dress those is­sues in the or­der that best helps you com­mu­nic­ate your par­tic­u­lar ar­gu­ment to your read­ers, not the or­der in which they were given in the as­sign­ment. If, for ex­ample, you were asked to “com­pare and con­trast Freud and Jung on the ima­gin­a­tion and un­con­scious,” you would not have to or­gan­ize your pa­per into two parts, the first on Freud and the second on Jung. That kind of or­gan­iz­a­tion too of­ten res­ults in a pair of un­re­lated sum­mar­ies. In­stead, try break­ing the top­ics into their con­cep­tual parts, such as ele­ments of the un­con­scious and the ima­gin­a­tion, their defin­i­tions, and so on; then or­der those parts in a way use­ful to your read­ers.

10.4  将计划转化为草案

10.4  Turn­ing Your Plan into a Draft

有些作家认为,只要有了提纲,或者更好的选择是故事板,就可以埋头苦写。经验丰富的作家则不然。更好。他们知道,就像计划一样,草拟也是一种发现的过程。在草拟的过程中,我们常常会经历研究中最激动人心的时刻之一:我们发现了那些在表达出来之前从未想到的想法。

Some writers think that once they have an out­line or, bet­ter, a story­board, they can just grind out sen­tences. Ex­per­i­enced writers know bet­ter. They know that like plan­ning, draft­ing can also be an act of dis­cov­ery. It is when draft­ing that we of­ten ex­per­i­ence one of re­search’s most ex­cit­ing mo­ments: we dis­cover ideas that we didn’t have un­til we ex­pressed them.

10.4.1  以感觉舒适的方式起草

10.4.1  Draft in a Way That Feels Com­fort­able

许多经验丰富的作家在绘制故事板的同时就开始写作。他们会先写一些草稿来探索自己的想法,然后根据这些发现来完善计划。他们知道,很多早期写作的内容最终都会被舍弃。探索性的写作可以帮助你发现从未想过的想法,但这需要时间。如果你有紧迫的截稿期限,最好在有了更清晰的计划之后再开始写作。

Many ex­per­i­enced writers be­gin to write as they fill up their story­boards. They use early drafts to ex­plore what they think, then re­fine their plans based on what they dis­cover. They know that much of that early writ­ing will not sur­vive. Ex­plor­at­ory draft­ing can help you dis­cover ideas you never ima­gined, but it takes time. If you are writ­ing to a tight dead­line, draft when you have a clearer plan.

许多作者写作速度很快:他们任由文字流淌,省略一些可以稍后补充的引语和数据,遇到瓶颈时就直接跳到前面的部分。如果记不清某个细节,他们会用“[?”标记,然后继续写,直到文思枯竭,再回头去查找。但快速写作的人也需要时间修改,所以如果你也想快速写作,那就尽早开始。

Many writers draft quickly: they let the words flow, omit­ting quo­ta­tions and data that they can plug in later, skip­ping ahead when they get stuck. If they don’t re­mem­ber a de­tail, they in­sert a “[?]” and keep writ­ing un­til they run out of gas, then go back to look it up. But quick drafters need time to re­vise, so if you draft quickly, start early.

有些作家只能慢工出细活:他们必须把上一句话都写好才能开始写下一句。为此,他们需要一个周密的计划。所以,如果你写作速度慢,那就创建一个详细的提纲或故事板。

Other writers can work only slowly and de­lib­er­ately: they have to get every sen­tence right be­fore they start the next one. To do that, they need a me­tic­u­lous plan. So if you draft slowly, cre­ate a de­tailed out­line or story­board.

大多数作家最有效的写作方法是快速起草、仔细修改,然后剔除无关内容。但你也可以用任何适合自己的方式写作。

Most writers work best when they draft quickly, re­vise care­fully, and toss what’s ir­rel­ev­ant. But draft in any way that works for you.

10.4.2  使用关键词和标题保持思路清晰

10.4.2  Use Keywords and Head­ings to Stay on Track

写作过程中一个难题是保持思路清晰。故事板有所帮助,但你也可以把关键术语放在手边,时不时地检查一下它们的使用频率,尤其是那些区分各个部分的术语。不过,不要让故事板或关键术语扼杀你的新思路。如果你发现自己思路偏离,那就顺着这个思路走下去,看看它会把你引向何方。你或许正走在一条通往有趣想法的道路上。

One prob­lem with draft­ing is stay­ing on track. A story­board helps, but you might also keep your key terms in front of you and, from time to time, check how of­ten you use them, es­pe­cially those that dis­tin­guish each sec­tion. But don’t let your story­board or key terms stifle fresh think­ing. If you find your­self wan­der­ing, fol­low the trail un­til you see where it takes you. You may be on the track of an in­ter­est­ing idea.

大多数领域发表的文章和论文都会使用标题和副标题来引导读者,我们也建议您在撰写文章时使用它们。每个标题或副标题都应包含与其章节或子章节相关的关键词:

Pub­lished art­icles and pa­pers in most fields use head­ings and sub­head­ings to ori­ent their read­ers, and we sug­gest that you use them also when you draft. Cre­ate each head­ing or sub­head­ing from words that are im­port­ant to its sec­tion or sub­sec­tion:

电子舞曲混音:知识产权与合理使用原则的界限

Re­mix­ing in Elec­tronic Dance Mu­sic: In­tel­lec­tual Prop­erty and the Lim­its of Fair Use

这些标题还能让你一目了然地了解文章结构,并在撰写过程中帮助你保持专注。修改时,你可以决定保留哪些标题,删除哪些。

Again, these head­ings also show the struc­ture of your pa­per at a glance and can keep you fo­cused as you draft. When you re­vise, you can de­cide which to keep and which to re­move.

▶ 小贴士:如何应对写作中的焦虑

▶ Quick Tip: Man­aging Anxi­ety as a Writer

我们都知道,写作会引发很多焦虑,而且这并非没有道理。写作很难:一位心理学家甚至将写作的认知难度比作下专家级的国际象棋。写作关乎个人:当我们写作时,即使是关于学术或专业主题,也难免会暴露一些自我——即便不是生活细节,至少也会流露出我们的思维习惯和思考方式。写作耗时:对大多数人来说,写好文章需要投入时间,而在紧迫的截稿期限下写作更是压力巨大。写作往往至关重要:作为学生和研究人员,我们的写作质量不仅对研究群体,也对我们自身有着重大影响——我们的成绩、论文发表、晋升,甚至工作都可能取决于此。

Writ­ing, we know, can pro­voke a lot of anxi­ety, and for good reas­ons. It’s hard: one psy­cho­lo­gist has com­pared its cog­nit­ive dif­fi­culty to that of play­ing ex­pert-level chess. It’s per­sonal: when we write, even about aca­demic and pro­fes­sional sub­jects, we in­ev­it­ably re­veal some­thing of ourselves—if not the de­tails of our lives, then at least our habits of mind and thought. It’s time-con­sum­ing: for most people, writ­ing well re­quires an in­vest­ment of time, and writ­ing un­der the pres­sure of tight dead­lines is stress­ful. It’s of­ten high stakes: the qual­ity of our writ­ing as stu­dents and re­search­ers has ma­jor con­sequences, not just for our re­search com­munit­ies but for ourselves—our grades, pub­lic­a­tions, pro­mo­tions, even jobs can de­pend on it.

写作焦虑也会带来严重的后果。它会加剧更广泛的心理健康问题和压力,如果您正面临这种情况,我们鼓励您寻求并利用现有的心理健康资源。焦虑会阻碍我们发挥最佳水平,甚至会导致我们做出鲁莽和不道德的选择:例如,许多抄袭者,无论是学生还是专业人士,并非因为他们认为抄袭没有错,而是因为在压力下为自己的选择寻找理由。

Writ­ing anxi­ety also has ser­i­ous con­sequences. It can ex­acer­bate broader men­tal health chal­lenges and pres­sures, and if that’s your situ­ation, we en­cour­age you to seek out and use the men­tal health re­sources avail­able to you. Anxi­ety can keep us from do­ing our best work. It can even lead us to make reck­less and un­eth­ical choices: for ex­ample, many of those who pla­gi­ar­ize, whether stu­dents or pro­fes­sion­als, do so not be­cause they see noth­ing wrong with it but be­cause they ra­tion­al­ize their choices un­der pres­sure.

以下是一些可能有帮助的建议。这些建议基于我们指导数千名作家的经验,以及我们自身克服写作焦虑的经历(我们自己也深受其扰——即使是在写这本书的时候!):

Here are some tips that might help. They are based on our ex­per­i­ence teach­ing thou­sands of writers as well as our own per­sonal ex­per­i­ence with writ­ing anxi­ety (we struggle too—even when writ­ing this book!):

  • ▪  给自己预留充足的时间。大多数人在规划任何项目时,都会低估所需时间。写作也不例外。所以,先做出最佳预估,然后再乘以二。
  • ▪  Give your­self ad­equate time. When plan­ning any pro­ject, most people un­der­es­tim­ate how long it will take. The same is true for writ­ing. So make your best es­tim­ate, then double it.
  • 将  大型抽象的任务分解成更小、更具体的任务。如果“写论文”这件事让你感到畏惧,那就把它分解成更容易完成的任务:制作故事板、撰写引言草稿、总结并回应参考文献、修改句子使其更清晰等等。
  • ▪  Di­vide large and ab­stract tasks into smal­ler and more con­crete ones. If the pro­spect of “writ­ing a pa­per” feels daunt­ing, break it down to more man­age­able tasks: make a story­board, draft a pro­vi­sional in­tro­duc­tion, sum­mar­ize and re­spond to a source, edit your sen­tences for clar­ity, and so on.
  • ▪  关注你写作的优势,而不是劣势。这条建议可能看起来有悖常理:我怎样才能写出一篇更好的论文? 如果我没有发现并改正所有错误怎么办?提交之前,你当然应该对文章进行充分的编辑润色。但是,过度关注文章的不足之处不仅会令人沮丧,还会阻碍你充分发挥创意,创作出最好的作品。作为一名写作者,最重要的能力之一就是能够识别并利用草稿中的潜力点。
  • ▪  Fo­cus on your writ­ing’s strengths, not its weak­nesses. This bit of ad­vice might seem coun­ter­in­tu­it­ive: How can I write a bet­ter pa­per if I don’t catch and fix all my mis­takes? Be­fore you sub­mit it, you should of course give your writ­ing a good ed­it­or­ial pol­ish­ing. But fo­cus­ing ob­sess­ively on a pa­per’s de­fi­cits is not just dis­cour­aging; it can also keep you from fully de­vel­op­ing your ideas and pro­du­cing your best work. One of the most im­port­ant abil­it­ies you can cul­tiv­ate as a writer is the abil­ity to re­cog­nize and then build on mo­ments of po­ten­tial in a draft.
  • 不要  独自写作。尽可能与他人分享你的作品。你会从他们的反馈中受益,而且仅仅是讨论就能激发你的思考。
  • ▪  Don’t go it alone. Whenever you can, share your writ­ing with oth­ers. You will be­ne­fit from their re­sponses, and just talk­ing it through will stim­u­late your think­ing.
  • ▪  设定合理的标准。我们都希望自己的文章尽善尽美,但没有人的文章是完美的。记住那句老话:不要让完美成为优秀的敌人。如果你觉得必须把每个句子或段落都写得完美无缺才能继续写下一个,你就有可能陷入写作瘫痪。不妨在写作过程中尝试一些非正式的表达方式。总之,要知道,每个研究人员为了完成工作,都会在完美主义的框架内做出一些妥协。
  • ▪  Ad­opt reas­on­able stand­ards. We all want our writ­ing to be as good as it can be, but no one’s writ­ing is per­fect. Re­mem­ber the say­ing Don’t let the per­fect be the en­emy of the good. If you feel that you must make every sen­tence or para­graph per­fect be­fore you move to the next one, you risk para­lysis. It helps if you write in­form­ally along the way. In any event, know that every re­searcher com­prom­ises on per­fec­tion to get the job done.
  • ▪  当你陷入写作瓶颈时,要意识到这一点,然后尝试其他方法。无论你多么努力,都无法将文字落笔或显示在屏幕上,这种感觉有一个专门的名称:写作障碍。许多缺乏经验的写作者希望自己能够硬着头皮克服它,但这很少奏效。写作障碍的一个原因是“锚定效应”这种认知现象。这是一种认知偏差,它让我们难以摆脱最初浮现的想法或措辞,转而想象其他可能性。你无法仅仅通过更加努力来克服锚定效应,因为那样只会强化它。相反,你必须退后一步,有意识地敞开心扉,接受其他可能性。你可以休息一下(二十分钟、一天两天、几个月甚至几年,具体取决于你的项目和你拥有的时间),让你的潜意识来思考这个问题。你可以和别人讨论你的论文,或者讨论一些与论文无关的事情。你甚至可以利用生成式人工智能:输入让你卡住的段落,并请求替代方案——但如果你这样做,请务必承认这种做法并向你的老师说明(参见第 3 章末尾的快速提示)。
  • ▪  Re­cog­nize when you are stuck, and then do some­thing dif­fer­ent. There’s a name for that feel­ing of not be­ing able to put words down on a page or up on a screen, no mat­ter how hard you try: writer’s block. Many in­ex­per­i­enced writers hope they can just push through it, but that rarely works. One cause of writer’s block is the cog­nit­ive phe­nomenon of “an­chor­ing.” It’s a kind of cog­nit­ive bias that keeps us from let­ting go of the first idea or phras­ing that oc­curs to us and ima­gin­ing oth­ers. You can’t com­bat an­chor­ing just by try­ing harder, be­cause that only re­in­forces it. In­stead, you have to step back and pur­pose­fully open your mind to al­tern­at­ives. You can take a break (of twenty minutes, or a day or two, or months or years, de­pend­ing on your pro­ject and the time you have) to let your un­con­scious mind work on the prob­lem. You can talk with oth­ers about your pa­per or even some­thing un­re­lated to it. You can even lever­age gen­er­at­ive AI: plug in the pas­sage that’s got you stuck and ask for al­tern­at­ives—but if you do, be sure to ac­know­ledge this prac­tice and clear it with your teacher (see the Quick Tip at the end of chapter 3).
  • ▪  接受你并非你的论文这一事实。对许多人来说,写作——即使是我们在本文中讨论的那种学术和专业写作——都并非易事。写作——是极其私人的事情。但将文章的质量与你的能力或个人价值混为一谈,可能会让你感到沮丧。我们建议你不要把任何一篇作品视为自身延伸,而应将其视为你精心打造的一件作品:尽你所能做到最好,然后放手。
  • ▪  Ac­cept that you are not your pa­per. For many, writ­ing—even the kinds of aca­demic and pro­fes­sional writ­ing we ad­dress in this book—is deeply per­sonal. But con­fus­ing the qual­ity of your pa­per with your ca­pa­cit­ies or value as a per­son can be de­bil­it­at­ing. We sug­gest that you re­gard any piece of writ­ing not as an ex­ten­sion of your­self but as a product you craft: do your best to make it as good as pos­sible, then let it go.
  • 最后  ,如果条件允许,不妨去写作中心看看。大多数高校、许多高中以及越来越多的公共图书馆和工作场所都设有写作中心,在那里你可以获得关于写作的个人咨询,他们还可以指导你获取更多关于高效写作方法和技巧的信息。
  • ▪  Fi­nally, visit a writ­ing cen­ter if one is avail­able to you. Most col­leges and uni­ver­sit­ies, many high schools, and in­creas­ing num­bers of pub­lic lib­rar­ies and work­places spon­sor writ­ing cen­ters through which you can re­ceive a per­sonal con­sulta­tion about your writ­ing and that can dir­ect you to ad­di­tional in­form­a­tion about pro­duct­ive writ­ing prac­tices and tech­niques.

11 修改和整理

11  Re­vis­ing and Or­gan­iz­ing

本章将讲解如何修改和组织你的文稿,使你的论点对读者和你自己一样清晰易懂。起初,这种方法可能看起来有些机械,但这正是它的优点所在。只要你一步一步地遵循,就能高效可靠地分析和改进文稿的结构。

This chapter ex­plains how to re­vise and or­gan­ize your drafts so that your ar­gu­ment is as clear to your read­ers as it is to you. At first this method may seem a bit mech­an­ical, but that’s its vir­tue. If you fol­low it one step at a time, you can ana­lyze and im­prove the or­gan­iz­a­tion of your draft ef­fi­ciently and re­li­ably.

一些新晋研究者认为,一旦写完初稿,一切就大功告成了。但优​​秀的作家深谙此道。他们写初稿并非为了取悦读者,而是为了探究自己观点的论证是否站得住脚,以及是否经得起推敲。然后,他们会反复修改,直到确信读者也会认同他们的论点。然而,为读者修改文章并非易事,因为我们对自己的作品太过熟悉,难以设身处地地从他人的角度去解读。你必须首先了解读者想要寻找什么,然后判断你的初稿是否能帮助他们找到答案。为此,你必须客观地分析自己的初稿;否则,你就会不自觉地将自己希望读者理解的内容强加于文章之中。

Some new re­search­ers think that once they’ve churned out a draft, they’re done. The best writers know bet­ter. They write a first draft not to show to read­ers, but to dis­cover what case they can ac­tu­ally make for their point and whether it stands up to their own scru­tiny. Then they re­vise and re­vise un­til they think their read­ers will agree with their ar­gu­ment too. Re­vis­ing for read­ers is hard, though, be­cause we all know our own work too well to read it as oth­ers will. You must first know what read­ers look for, then de­term­ine whether your draft helps them find it. To do that, you have to ana­lyze your draft ob­ject­ively; oth­er­wise, you’ll just read into it what you want your read­ers to get out of it.

有些作者拒绝为读者修改文章,担心迎合读者会损害自己的创作原则。他们认为,自己发现的真理应该不言自明,如果读者难以理解,那就只能自己更加努力了。但为读者修改文章并不意味着迎合他们。事实上,只有当你设想与读者展开一场友好的对话,让他们在理解你观点的同时,也思考你的观点时,你才能真正完善自己的想法。

Some writers res­ist any re­vis­ing for read­ers, fear­ing that if they ac­com­mod­ate their read­ers, they com­prom­ise their in­teg­rity. They think that the truth of their dis­cov­ery should speak for it­self, and if read­ers have a hard time un­der­stand­ing it, well, they just have to work harder. But re­vis­ing for read­ers doesn’t mean pan­der­ing to them. In fact, you only im­prove your ideas when you ima­gine draw­ing read­ers into an ami­able con­ver­sa­tion in which they en­gage your be­liefs as you en­gage theirs.

在本章中,我们将向您展示如何诊断和修改您的组织结构和论点,以便读者能够从中获得您认为您投入其中的内容。

In this chapter, we show you how to dia­gnose and re­vise your or­gan­iz­a­tion and ar­gu­ment so that read­ers get out of it what you think you put into it.

11.1  像读者一样思考

11.1  Think­ing Like a Reader

读者不会像串珠子一样逐字逐句地阅读。他们希望首先了解文章的整体结构,以及最重要的——他们为什么要读你的文章。然后,他们会运用这种整体感来解读文章的各个部分。因此,修改文章时,首先关注整体结构,然后是各个章节,接着是段落的连贯性和句子的清晰度,最后才是拼写和标点符号。当然,实际上没有人会如此一丝不苟地修改。我们都是边写边改,在调整论点时纠正拼写错误,在修改段落时澄清论据。但是,如果你系统地自上而下地修改,从整体结构到局部句子和词语,你更有可能像读者一样阅读,而不是从底层词语和句子开始,逐字逐句地修改。此外,你的修改效率也会更高,因为你不会花费时间去微调那些你之后决定重新排列甚至删除的整个部分。

Read­ers do not read word by word, sen­tence by sen­tence, as if they were adding up beads on a string. They want to be­gin with a sense of the whole, its struc­ture, and, most im­port­ant, why they should read your pa­per in the first place. Then they use that sense of the whole to in­ter­pret its parts. So when you re­vise, it makes sense to at­tend first to your over­all or­gan­iz­a­tion, then to sec­tions, then to the co­her­ence of your para­graphs and the clar­ity of your sen­tences, and, fi­nally, to mat­ters of spelling and punc­tu­ation. In real­ity, of course, no one re­vises so neatly. We all re­vise as we go, cor­rect­ing spelling as we re­arrange our ar­gu­ment, cla­ri­fy­ing evid­ence as we re­vise a para­graph. But when you sys­tem­at­ic­ally re­vise top-down, from global struc­ture to local sen­tences and words, you are more likely to read as your read­ers will than if you start at the bot­tom, with words and sen­tences, and work up. You will also re­vise more ef­fi­ciently be­cause you won’t spend time fine-tun­ing whole sec­tions that you later de­cide to re­arrange or even cut.

11.2  修改你的框架

11.2  Re­vis­ing Your Frame

读者必须立即且明确地认识到三件事:

Read­ers must re­cog­nize three things in­stantly and un­am­bigu­ously:

  • ▪ 你的介绍到此结束
  • ▪  where your in­tro­duc­tion ends
  • ▪ 结论的开头
  • ▪  where your con­clu­sion be­gins
  • ▪ 其中一句或两句话中哪一句表达了你的主要观点
  • ▪  what sen­tence in one or both states your main point

为确保读者能够识别这些内容,请执行以下操作:

To en­sure that read­ers re­cog­nize these, do the fol­low­ing:

  1. 1.在引言之后和结论之前各空一行。如果你的领域允许,可以在这些空行处添加标题,以免读者错过。
  2. 1. Put an ex­tra line space after your in­tro­duc­tion and be­fore your con­clu­sion. If your field ap­proves, put head­ings at those breaks so that read­ers can’t miss them.
  3. 2.在引言的结尾或接近结尾处提出你的主要观点。然后将该观点与结论中的观点进行比较。它们至少不应相互矛盾,也不应完全相同:结论中的观点应更加具体、明确。
  4. 2. State your main point at or close to the end of your in­tro­duc­tion. Then com­pare that point with the one in your con­clu­sion. They should at least not con­tra­dict each other. Nor should they be identical: make the one in your con­clu­sion more spe­cific and defin­it­ive.
  5. 3.在引言的要点句中包含贯穿全文的概念和主题的关键术语。不仅当要点句阐明你的主要论点时要这样做,而且当它只是一个引子时也要这样做(参见10.2.1、14.4.2

    例如,请看以下这段引言(已大幅简化)。它对本文的主旨有何暗示?

    1. 十一世纪,罗马天主教会发动了数次十字军东征,试图夺回圣地。1074年,教宗格里高利七世在致亨利四世国王的信中敦促发动十字军东征,但最终未能成行。1095年,他的继任者教宗乌尔班二世在克莱蒙会议上发表讲话,再次呼吁发动十字军东征。次年,即1096年,他发动了第一次十字军东征。本文将探讨十字军东征的起因。
    2. 最接近要点的句子似乎是最后那句含糊不清的话。但它仅仅是宣布十字军东征是一个话题而已。
    3. 以下是结论部分第一段的前几句话(同样,已大幅删减)。哪句话是重点句?
    4. 正如这些文献所示,教皇乌尔班二世和格里高利七世确实敦促十字军东征以恢复圣地的基督教统治。但他们的努力也是精明的政治举措,旨在统一罗马教会和希腊教会,并防止帝国因内部势力的威胁而分崩离析。通过这种方式,他们……
    5. 结论部分的关键句似乎是第二句(“但他们的努力……撇开其他因素不谈”)。这一点具体、实质性,而且也存在合理的争议点。我们可以将该点的简短版本添加到引言的末尾,或者我们可以为引言写一句新句子,虽然这句话不能完整地揭示该点,但至少可以更清晰地介绍论文的关键概念:
    6. 在一系列文件中,教皇们提议发动十字军东征,将耶路撒冷归还给基督教世界,但他们的言辞也暗示了其他问题,涉及欧洲和基督教团结政治考量,因为内部势力正在分裂他们。
  6. 3. In­clude in the point sen­tence of your in­tro­duc­tion key terms that name con­cepts and themes that run through your pa­per. Do this not only when your point sen­tence an­nounces your main claim but also if it is just a launch­ing point (see 10.2.1, 14.4.2).

    For ex­ample, con­sider this in­tro­duct­ory para­graph (much ab­bre­vi­ated). What does it im­ply about the point of the pa­per?

    1. In the el­ev­enth cen­tury, the Ro­man Cath­olic Church ini­ti­ated sev­eral Cru­sades to re­cap­ture the Holy Land. In a let­ter to King Henry IV in the year 1074, Gregory VII urged a Cru­sade but failed to carry it out. In 1095 his suc­cessor, Pope Urban II, gave a speech at the Coun­cil of Cler­mont in which he also called for a Cru­sade, and in the next year, in 1096, he ini­ti­ated the First Cru­sade. In this pa­per, I will dis­cuss the reas­ons for the Cru­sades.
    2. The closest thing to a point sen­tence ap­pears to be that vague last one. But it merely an­nounces the Cru­sades as a topic.
    3. Here are the first few sen­tences from the first para­graph of the con­clu­sion (again, much ab­bre­vi­ated). Which is the point sen­tence?
    4. As these doc­u­ments show, popes Urban II and Gregory VII did urge the Cru­sades to re­store the Holy Land to Chris­tian rule. But their ef­forts were also shrewd polit­ical moves to unify the Ro­man and Greek churches and to pre­vent the breakup of the em­pire from in­ternal forces threat­en­ing to tear it apart. In so do­ing, they . . .
    5. The point sen­tence in the con­clu­sion seems to be the second one (“But their ef­forts . . . apart”). That point is spe­cific, sub­stant­ive, and plaus­ibly con­test­able. We could add a shortened ver­sion of that point to the end of the in­tro­duc­tion, or we could write a new sen­tence for the in­tro­duc­tion that, while not re­veal­ing the full point, would at least in­tro­duce the key con­cepts of the pa­per more clearly:
    6. In a series of doc­u­ments, the popes pro­posed their Cru­sades to re­store Jer­u­s­alem to Christen­dom, but their words sug­gest other is­sues in­volving polit­ical con­cerns about European and Chris­tian unity in the face of in­ternal forces that were di­vid­ing them.

11.3  修改你的论点

11.3  Re­vis­ing Your Ar­gu­ment

一旦确定文章框架适合读者,就逐段分析你的论点。我们知道这看似重复了之前的步骤,但一旦写成初稿,你的论点可能与你最初在故事板或提纲中设想的有所不同。

Once you de­term­ine that the frame of your pa­per will work for read­ers, ana­lyze your ar­gu­ment sec­tion by sec­tion. We know this seems to re­peat earlier steps, but once draf­ted, your ar­gu­ment may look dif­fer­ent from the way it did in your story­board or out­line.

11.3.1  明确论点的实质内容

11.3.1  Identify the Sub­stance of Your Ar­gu­ment

你的论文结构与你的论证结构是否一致?

Does the struc­ture of your pa­per match the struc­ture of your ar­gu­ment?

  1. 1.你提出的所有支持主要论点的理由是否都足以构成一个独立的章节?如果不是,你文章的组织要点可能与你的论证结构相冲突。
  2. 1. Is each reason sup­port­ing your main claim the point of a sec­tion of its own? If not, the or­gan­iz­ing points of your pa­per may con­flict with the struc­ture of your ar­gu­ment.
  3. 2.你是否在理由和证据之间取得了恰当的平衡?在每个部分,都要明确指出所有构成证据的内容,包括所有摘要、释义、引文、事实、数据、图表和表格。如果你很少用篇幅来展示和解释证据,你的论证可能就会显得单薄。如果你有很多证据但缺乏或根本没有理由,那么你的文章可能只是一堆数据的堆砌。
  4. 2. Do you strike the right bal­ance between reas­ons and evid­ence? In each sec­tion, identify everything that counts as evid­ence, all the sum­mar­ies, para­phrases, quo­ta­tions, facts, fig­ures, graphs, tables. If you de­vote little space to present­ing and ex­plain­ing your evid­ence, your ar­gu­ment may be thin. If you have lots of evid­ence but few or no reas­ons, you may have just a data dump.

11.3.2  评估你的论证质量

11.3.2  Eval­u­ate the Qual­ity of Your Ar­gu­ment

什么因素可能导致读者对你的论点产生怀疑?

What might cause your read­ers to doubt your ar­gu­ment?

  1. 1.你的证据可靠吗?第七章中,我们提到证据应当准确、精确、充分、具有代表性、权威且清晰易懂(见7.5)。如果你已经接近最终稿,可能已经来不及寻找更多或更好的证据了。但你可以检查其他方面:
    • ▪ 将你的数据和引文与你的笔记进行核对。
    • ▪ 确保读者能够理解引文和数据与你的论点之间的联系。
    • ▪ 请确保没有跳过主要理由与其支持证据之间的中间子理由。
  2. 1. Is your evid­ence re­li­able? In chapter 7, we said that evid­ence should be ac­cur­ate, pre­cise, suf­fi­cient and rep­res­ent­at­ive, au­thor­it­at­ive, and clear and un­der­stand­able (see 7.5). If you are close to a fi­nal draft, it may be too late to find more or bet­ter evid­ence. But you can check other mat­ters:
    • ▪  Check your data and quo­ta­tions against your notes.
    • ▪  Make sure your read­ers see how quo­ta­tions and data re­late to your claim.
    • ▪  Be sure you haven’t skipped in­ter­me­di­ate sub-reas­ons between a ma­jor reason and its sup­port­ing evid­ence.
  3. 2.你是否对你的论点进行了适当的限定?你能否添加一些恰当的限定词,例如“可能”、 “大多数” “经常”、 “或许等等?
  4. 2. Have you ap­pro­pri­ately qual­i­fied your ar­gu­ment? Can you drop in a few ap­pro­pri­ate hedges like prob­ably, most, of­ten, may, and so on?
  5. 3.你是否已经阐述了所有应该阐述的论据?这个问题没有简单的检验方法。一旦你确定了论证的每个部分和子部分,就在空白处写下其最重要的未阐述论据。然后问问读者是否会接受它。如果不会,你就必须阐述并论证它。
  6. 3. Have you ex­pressed all the war­rants you should? There is no easy test for this ques­tion. Once you identify each sec­tion and sub­sec­tion of your ar­gu­ment, write in the mar­gin its most im­port­ant un­stated war­rant. Then ask whether read­ers will ac­cept it. If not, you have to state and sup­port it.
  7. 4.你的论文读起来像是与同行或同事的对话吗?他们提出了一些尖锐但友好的问题。如果它读起来像是一场竞赛……如果你还没有承认并回应竞争对手提出的不同观点或反对意见,请重新审视你的论证,想象一位同情但持怀疑态度的读者会问:“你为什么这么认为?你的观点真的有那么有力吗?你能解释一下这些证据与你的观点有何关联吗?但是……呢?”(回顾第九章。)然后,逐一回应那些你认为最重要的反对意见。
  8. 4. Does your pa­per read like a con­ver­sa­tion with peers or col­leagues ask­ing hard but friendly ques­tions? If it reads like a con­test between com­pet­it­ors or if you haven’t ac­know­ledged and re­spon­ded to al­tern­at­ive views or ob­jec­tions, go back through your ar­gu­ment and ima­gine a sym­path­etic but skep­tical reader ask­ing, Why do you be­lieve that? Are you really mak­ing that strong a point? Could you ex­plain how this evid­ence relates to your point? But what about . . . ? (Re­view chapter 9.) Then ad­dress those ob­jec­tions that seem most im­port­ant.

11.4  修订您的组织

11.4  Re­vis­ing Your Or­gan­iz­a­tion

一旦你对论文的框架和论证内容都感到满意,就要确保读者能理解整篇文章的逻辑连贯性。请检查以下几点:

Once you are con­fid­ent about the outer frame of your pa­per and the sub­stance of its ar­gu­ment, make sure that read­ers will find the whole pa­per co­her­ent. Check the fol­low­ing:

  1. 1.关键词是否贯穿整篇论文?
    • ▪ 在引言和结论中突出重点术语。
    • ▪ 在论文正文中突出显示这些术语。
    • ▪ 用下划线标出与这些高亮显示的术语所指概念相关的其他词语。

      以下是关于十字军东征的总结段落,其中关键术语已突出显示:

    1. 正如这些文献所示,教皇乌尔班二世和格里高利七世确实敦促十字军东征以恢复圣地的基督教统治。但他们的努力也是精明的政治举措,旨在统一罗马教会和希腊教会,并防止帝国因内部势力的威胁而分崩离析
    2. 如果读者在大多数段落中看不到至少一个关键术语,他们可能会认为你的文章跑题了。
    3. 如果你发现一段文字缺少关键词,可以想办法添加一些。如果添加起来很困难,说明你可能偏离了主题,需要重写甚至删除这段文字。
    4. 2.每个章节和子章节的开头是否清晰标明?你能否快速自信地插入标题来标记主要章节的起始位置?如果你做不到,你的读者可能也做不到。明确你的组织结构。如果你不使用标题,请在主要章节之间添加额外的空行。
    5. 3.每个主要章节的开头是否都用词语表明了该章节与前一章节的关系?读者不仅要能识别章节的起止位置,还要理解章节顺序安排的原因。您是否使用过诸如“更重要的是……  ”、“这个问题的另一面是……”  、“有人反对……  ”、“一个复杂之处在于……  ”或者仅仅是“首先……其次……”之类的短语来阐明章节顺序的逻辑 ?
    6. 4.各部分与整体的关系是否清晰?对于每一部分,都要问自己:这一部分回答了什么问题?如果它没有回答构成论证的五个问题之一(参见5.1),那么它是否提供了背景信息、解释了某个概念或问题,或者以其他方式帮助了读者?如果你无法解释某一部分与你的观点有何关联,请考虑将其删除。
    7. 5.各章节的要点是在简短的引言中(最好)还是在结论中阐明?如果可以选择,请将章节要点放在引言的结尾,切勿将其埋没在中间。如果章节超过几页,您可以在结尾重申要点并总结论证,尤其是在论证包含大量事实,例如人名、日期或数字的情况下。
    8. 6.每个章节是否有贯穿始终的关键术语?每个章节都需要有自己的关键术语,以便与其他章节区分开来。如果您发现每个章节都没有与全文相同的关键术语,那么读者可能无法理解该章节的新观点。如果您发现某些术语也出现在其他章节中,那么这两个章节的内容可能只是重复。如果是这种情况,请考虑将它们合并。
  2. 1. Do key terms run through your whole pa­per?
    • ▪  High­light key terms in the main point in your in­tro­duc­tion and con­clu­sion.
    • ▪  High­light those same terms in the body of your pa­per.
    • ▪  Un­der­line other words re­lated to con­cepts named by those high­lighted terms.

      Here again is that con­clud­ing para­graph about the Cru­sades, with its key terms high­lighted:

    1. As these doc­u­ments show, popes Urban II and Gregory VII did urge the Cru­sades to re­store the Holy Land to Chris­tian rule. But their ef­forts were also shrewd polit­ical moves to unify the Ro­man and Greek churches and to pre­vent the breakup of the em­pire from in­ternal forces threat­en­ing to tear it apart.
    2. If read­ers don’t see at least one of those key terms in most para­graphs, they may think your pa­per wanders.
    3. If you find a pas­sage that lacks key terms, you might shoe­horn a few in. If that’s dif­fi­cult, you may have got­ten off track and need to re­write or even dis­card that pas­sage.
    4. 2. Is the be­gin­ning of each sec­tion and sub­sec­tion clearly signaled? Could you quickly and con­fid­ently in­sert head­ings to mark where your ma­jor sec­tions be­gin? If you can’t, your read­ers prob­ably won’t re­cog­nize your or­gan­iz­a­tion. If you don’t use head­ings, add an ex­tra line space between ma­jor sec­tions.
    5. 3. Does each ma­jor sec­tion be­gin with words that sig­nal how that sec­tion relates to the one be­fore it? Read­ers must not only re­cog­nize where sec­tions be­gin and end, but un­der­stand why they are ordered as they are. Have you signaled the lo­gic of your or­der with phrases such as More im­port­ant . . . ; The other side of this is­sue is . . . ; Some have ob­jec­ted that . . . ; One com­plic­a­tion is . . . ; or even just First, . . . Second, . . . ?
    6. 4. Is it clear how each sec­tion relates to the whole? For each sec­tion ask, What ques­tion does this sec­tion an­swer? If it doesn’t an­swer one of the five ques­tions whose an­swers con­sti­tute an ar­gu­ment (see 5.1), does it cre­ate a con­text, ex­plain a back­ground concept or is­sue, or help read­ers in some other way? If you can’t ex­plain how a sec­tion relates to your point, con­sider cut­ting it.
    7. 5. Is the point of each sec­tion stated in a brief in­tro­duc­tion (prefer­ably) or in its con­clu­sion? If you have a choice, state the point of a sec­tion at the end of its in­tro­duc­tion. Never bury it in the middle. If a sec­tion is longer than a few pages, you might con­clude by re­stat­ing your point and sum­mar­iz­ing your ar­gu­ment, es­pe­cially if your ar­gu­ment is fact-heavy with names, dates, or num­bers.
    8. 6. Does each sec­tion have key terms run­ning through it? Each sec­tion needs its own key terms to dis­tin­guish it from the oth­ers. If you find no terms that dif­fer from those run­ning through the whole, then your read­ers may not see what new ideas that sec­tion con­trib­utes. If you find that some of the terms also run through an­other sec­tion, the two sec­tions may only re­peat each an­other. If so, con­sider com­bin­ing them.

11.5  检查段落

11.5  Check­ing Your Para­graphs

你可能学过,每个段落都应该以主题句开头,并且与它所在的章节直接相关。这些都是很好的经验法则,但如果过于死板地应用,会让你的文章显得生硬。重要的是要合理安排段落的结构和顺序,引导读者进入对话。你要精心组织文章结构。每个段落开头都要用一两句话概括其核心概念。这样做有助于读者更好地理解接下来的内容。如果开头没有阐明段落要点,那么结尾句就应该突出重点。切勿将要点放在段落中间。

You may have learned that every para­graph should be­gin with a topic sen­tence and be dir­ectly rel­ev­ant to the sec­tion in which it ap­pears. Those are good rules of thumb, but ap­plied too strictly they can make your writ­ing seem stiff. The im­port­ant thing is to struc­ture and ar­range your para­graphs so that they lead your read­ers through the con­ver­sa­tion you are or­ches­trat­ing. Open each para­graph with a sen­tence or two that sig­nal its key con­cepts. Do­ing that will help read­ers bet­ter un­der­stand what fol­lows. If your open­ing doesn’t also state the para­graph’s point, then your last sen­tence should. Never bury the point in the middle.

段落的长度会根据文章类型而有所不同。例如,简短的研究报告中的段落通常较短,而评论文章或书籍章节中的段落则较长。段落的长度应该足以展开论点,但又不能过长以至于读者失去注意力,也就是说,段落长度应该“恰到好处”(就像童话故事里的金发姑娘一样)。如果你发现自己写的是一些只有几行的零碎段落,这可能意味着你的论点不够充分。如果你发现自己写的是超过一页的长段落,这可能意味着你在离题。有时,你可以调整段落的长度以达到某种效果:使用短段落来突出过渡或你想强调的语句。

Para­graphs vary in length de­pend­ing on the type of writ­ing in which they ap­pear. For ex­ample, they tend to be shorter in brief re­search re­ports and longer in, say, crit­ical es­says or book chapters. Para­graphs should be long enough to de­velop their points but not so long that read­ers lose fo­cus, which is simply to say they should be “just right” (an­other Goldilocks mo­ment). If you find your­self string­ing to­gether choppy para­graphs of just a few lines, it may mean your points are not well de­veloped. If you find your­self rolling out very long para­graphs of more than a page, it may mean that you are di­gress­ing. You can some­times vary the lengths of your para­graphs for ef­fect: use short para­graphs to high­light trans­itions or state­ments that you want to em­phas­ize.

有些作者觉得,与其关注段落本身,不如关注段落之间的停顿更为自然。你可以像对话中的停顿一样运用段落停顿,例如,在阐述完一个重要观点后稍作休息,让读者有时间消化一段复杂的文字,或者用来提示新观点的过渡。

Some writers find it more nat­ural to think not about their para­graphs but about their para­graph breaks. Use your para­graph breaks as you would the pauses in a con­ver­sa­tion, for ex­ample, to rest after you make a strong point, to give your read­ers a mo­ment to pro­cess a com­plex pas­sage, or to sig­nal a trans­ition to a new idea.

11.6  让你的草稿冷却一下,然后再重新审视它

11.6  Let­ting Your Draft Cool, Then Re­vis­it­ing It

如果你尽早开始你的项目,你就有时间让修改后的草稿“冷却”一下,也就是先把它放在一边,给自己留出一些时间,然后再以全新的视角审视它。今天看起来不错的东西,明天可能就变得不一样了。当你重新审视草稿时,不要一口气读完;先浏览一下最重要的部分:引言、每个主要章节的第一段以及结论。你觉得论点和结构仍然合理吗?如果不合理,就进行调整。更好的办法是,请一位你信任的人浏览你的文章并总结要点:如果他们都看错了,你的最终读者很可能也会看错,所以要及时澄清。最后,一定要认真考虑读者的建议,即使你并非采纳了每一条建议。

If you start your pro­ject early, you’ll have time to let your re­vised draft cool, that is, to put it aside so that you can get some dis­tance from it and then ap­proach it afresh. What seems good one day of­ten looks dif­fer­ent the next. When you re­turn to your draft, don’t read straight through; skim its top-level parts: its in­tro­duc­tion, the first para­graph of each ma­jor sec­tion, and its con­clu­sion. Do the ar­gu­ment and or­gan­iz­a­tion still seem right to you? If not, ad­just them. Even bet­ter, ask someone you trust to skim your pa­per and sum­mar­ize it: if they get some­thing wrong, your fi­nal read­ers likely will too, so cla­rify it. Fi­nally, al­ways con­sider your reader’s ad­vice, even if you do not fol­low every sug­ges­tion.

▶ 小贴士:摘要

▶ Quick Tip: Ab­stracts

摘要是一段文字,它告诉读者论文、文章或报告的内容概要。摘要应该比引言短,但要完成引言的三项工作(参见10.2.1第 14 章):

An ab­stract is a para­graph that tells read­ers what they will find in a pa­per, art­icle, or re­port. It should be shorter than an in­tro­duc­tion but do three things that an in­tro­duc­tion does (see 10.2.1 and chapter 14):

  • ▪ 陈述研究问题
  • ▪  state the re­search prob­lem
  • ▪ 公布关键主题
  • ▪  an­nounce key themes
  • ▪ 陈述要点或引出要点的切入点
  • ▪  state the main point or a launch­ing point that an­ti­cip­ates the main point

摘要因领域而异,有些领域甚至完全不使用摘要。但大多数摘要遵循以下三种模式之一。要确定哪种模式最适合您的领域,请咨询您的老师或查阅标准期刊。以下是这些模式的示例,改编自一篇政治学文章的摘要(第三种是原文)。

Ab­stracts dif­fer from field to field, and some fields don’t use them at all. But most ab­stracts fol­low one of three pat­terns. To de­term­ine which best suits your field, ask your teacher or look in a stand­ard journal. Here are ex­amples of these pat­terns, ad­ap­ted from the ab­stract to an art­icle in polit­ical sci­ence (the third is the ori­ginal).

1. 背景 + 问题 + 要点

1. Con­text + Prob­lem + Main Point

这种摘要是一种简短的引言。它以一两句话介绍先前研究的背景,接着用一两句话陈述问题,最后总结主要观点。

This kind of ab­stract is an ab­bre­vi­ated in­tro­duc­tion. It be­gins with a sen­tence or two to es­tab­lish the con­text of pre­vi­ous re­search, con­tin­ues with a sen­tence or two to state the prob­lem, and con­cludes with the main point.

学者们长期以来一直认为民主能够提升公民的生活质量。然而,近期的研究对这一传统观点提出了质疑,指出一个国家的政体类型与其人类发展水平之间几乎没有关联。本文认为,民主能够促进人类发展,但前提是将其视为一种历史现象。

Schol­ars have long as­sumed that demo­cracy im­proves the qual­ity of life for its cit­izens.con­text But re­cent re­search has called this or­tho­doxy into ques­tion, sug­gest­ing that there is little or no re­la­tion­ship between a coun­try’s re­gime type and its level of hu­man de­vel­op­ment.prob­lem In this art­icle, we ar­gue that demo­cracy can be shown to ad­vance hu­man de­vel­op­ment, but only when con­sidered as a his­tor­ical phe­nomenon.main point

2. 背景 + 问题 + 出发点

2. Con­text + Prob­lem + Launch­ing Point

这种模式与前一种相同,只是摘要没有陈述具体观点,而是概述了文章将如何展开。

This pat­tern is the same as the pre­vi­ous one, ex­cept that the ab­stract states not a spe­cific point but out­lines how the art­icle will un­fold.

学者们长期以来一直认为民主能够提高公民的生活质量,但最近的研究对这种正统观念提出了质疑。有人质疑,一国的政体类型与其人类发展水平之间几乎没有关系。本文回顾了这方面的研究,构建了一系列民主可能改善社会福利的因果路径,并检验了两个假设:(a)一国在特定年份的民主水平会影响其人类发展水平;(b)该国过去一个世纪的民主存量

Schol­ars have long as­sumed that demo­cracy im­proves the qual­ity of life for its cit­izens,con­text but re­cent re­search has called this or­tho­doxy into ques­tion, sug­gest­ing that there is little or no re­la­tion­ship between a coun­try’s re­gime type and its level of hu­man de­vel­op­ment.prob­lem In this art­icle, we re­view this body of work, de­velop a series of causal path­ways through which demo­cracy might im­prove so­cial wel­fare, and test two hy­po­theses: (a) that a coun­try’s level of demo­cracy in a given year af­fects its level of hu­man de­vel­op­ment and (b) that its stock of demo­cracy over the past cen­tury af­fects its level of hu­man de­vel­op­ment.launch­ing point

3. 总结

3. Sum­mary

摘要也阐述了背景和问题;但在报告结果之前,它会概括论证的其余部分,重点关注支持结果的证据或实现结果所采用的程序和方法。以下是已发表的摘要:

A sum­mary also states the con­text and the prob­lem; but be­fore re­port­ing the res­ult, it sum­mar­izes the rest of the ar­gu­ment, fo­cus­ing either on the evid­ence sup­port­ing the res­ult or on the pro­ced­ures and meth­ods used to achieve it. Here is the ab­stract as it was pub­lished:

民主是否能提升公民的生活质量?学者们长期以来一直认为答案是肯定的,但近期的研究对这一传统观点提出了质疑。本文回顾了相关研究,构建了一系列民主可能改善社会福利的因果路径,并检验了两个假设:(a) 一个国家在特定年份的民主水平会影响其人类发展水平;(b) 一个国家过去一个世纪的民主存量会影响其人类发展水平。我们以婴儿死亡率作为衡量人类发展水平的核心指标,对这两个假设进行了一系列时间序列的跨国统计检验因此,我们认为,思考民主与发展之间关系的最佳方式是将其视为一种随时间变化的历史现象

Does demo­cracy im­prove the qual­ity of life for its cit­izens? Schol­ars have long as­sumed that it does,con­text but re­cent re­search has called this or­tho­doxy into ques­tion.prob­lem This art­icle re­views this body of work, de­vel­ops a series of causal path­ways through which demo­cracy might im­prove so­cial wel­fare, and tests two hy­po­theses: (a) that a coun­try’s level of demo­cracy in a given year af­fects its level of hu­man de­vel­op­ment and (b) that its stock of demo­cracy over the past cen­tury af­fects its level of hu­man de­vel­op­ment. Us­ing in­fant mor­tal­ity rates as a core meas­ure of hu­man de­vel­op­ment, we con­duct a series of time-series—cross-na­tional stat­ist­ical tests of these two hy­po­theses. We find only slight evid­ence for the first pro­pos­i­tion, but sub­stan­tial sup­port for the second.sum­mary Thus, we ar­gue that the best way to think about the re­la­tion­ship between demo­cracy and de­vel­op­ment is as a time-de­pend­ent, his­tor­ical phe­nomenon.main point

由于此版本包含摘要,因此其对问题的陈述比其他版本更短(摘要篇幅有限)。另请注意开头句。此版本并未按惯例陈述背景,而是以一个看似反问句——“民主是否能提高公民的生活质量?”——开头,其目的正是为了推翻隐含的答案。即使将形式压缩成抽象形式,可以偶尔加入一些风格上的点缀。

Since this ver­sion in­cludes a sum­mary, its state­ment of the prob­lem is shorter than in the other ver­sions (an ab­stract can only be so long). No­tice, too, the open­ing sen­tence. Rather than stat­ing the con­text in stand­ard fash­ion, this ver­sion be­gins with what seems to be a rhet­or­ical ques­tion—“Does demo­cracy im­prove the qual­ity of life for its cit­izens?”—just so it can then upend the im­plied an­swer. Even as com­pressed a form as an ab­stract al­lows for the oc­ca­sional styl­istic flour­ish.

最后一点建议:如果你发表了研究成果,将来可能有其他研究人员想通过关键词搜索引擎找到它。所以,不妨设想一下自己搜索论文的情景。你会搜索哪些关键词?把它们用在论文的标题和摘要中。

A fi­nal tip: if you pub­lish your re­search, some re­searcher down the line may want to find it, us­ing a search en­gine that looks for keywords. So ima­gine search­ing for your pa­per your­self. What keywords would you look for? Use them in your title and ab­stract.

12. 整合资料

12  In­cor­por­at­ing Sources

本章解释了将来源中的语言融入论文的三种方法(概括、释义和引用),如何正确引用来源,以及为什么必须正确引用来源。

This chapter ex­plains three ways you can in­cor­por­ate lan­guage from sources into your pa­per (sum­mary, para­phrase, and quo­ta­tion), how to cite your sources cor­rectly, and why you must.

论文或演讲的大部分内容应该用你自己的语言表达,反映你自己的思考。但这种思考应该有研究证据支撑,并辅以对其他研究者相关论点的引用和回应。这些论点主要来源于二手资料,即研究群体发表的“对话”,这些对话被保存在文献中,包括其成员撰写的书籍、文章、报告和论文。我们之前讨论过建立个人信誉、赢得听众信任的重要性。听众对你的信任程度,很大程度上取决于你如何运用资料,尤其是二手资料。因此,你需要了解你所拥有的选择。

Most of your pa­per or present­a­tion should be in your own words and re­flect your own think­ing. But that think­ing should be sup­por­ted by evid­ence from your re­search and thickened with ac­know­ledg­ments of and re­sponses to rel­ev­ant ar­gu­ments from other re­search­ers. The main place you find these other ar­gu­ments is in your sec­ond­ary sources, the pub­lished “con­ver­sa­tions” of a re­search com­munity pre­served in its lit­er­at­ure, the books, art­icles, re­ports, and pa­pers its mem­bers have pro­duced. We have talked about the im­port­ance of es­tab­lish­ing your ethos, of earn­ing the trust of your audi­ence. How much they trust you will be de­term­ined, largely, by how you use your sources, es­pe­cially those sec­ond­ary sources. So you need to un­der­stand the choices you have.

12.1  总结、释义和引用

12.1  Sum­mar­iz­ing, Para­phras­ing, and Quot­ing

概括是指提炼或压缩较长段落或资料的主要内容,然后陈述其要点(概括通常比原文短得多);释义是指用自己的话重述资料中的段落;引用是指直接复述资料中文字。不同领域对这些技巧的使用程度不同:人文学科的研究者比社会科学家和自然科学家更倾向于引用资料,后者通常采用释义和概括的方式。但具体情况具体分析,需要根据实际情况来判断。运用你从资料来源中找到的信息或观点。以下是一些原则:

When you sum­mar­ize, you dis­till or com­press and then state the main points of a longer pas­sage or source (sum­mar­ies are typ­ic­ally much shorter than the ori­ginal); when you para­phrase, you re­state a pas­sage from a source in your own words; when you quote, you re­pro­duce a source’s words ex­actly. Dif­fer­ent fields use these tech­niques to dif­fer­ent de­grees: re­search­ers in the hu­man­it­ies quote their sources more than do so­cial and nat­ural sci­ent­ists, who typ­ic­ally para­phrase and sum­mar­ize. But you must de­cide each case for it­self, de­pend­ing on how you use the in­form­a­tion or ideas you find in your sources. Here are some prin­ciples:

  • ▪ 当你使用某个来源的整体思路而细节并不重要时,请进行总结。
  • ▪  Sum­mar­ize when you are us­ing a source’s over­all ideas and the de­tails are un­im­port­ant.
  • ▪ 当你的论点依赖于某个来源的具体观点或信息,而不是依赖于该来源的具体措辞时,请使用释义。
  • ▪  Para­phrase when your ar­gu­ment de­pends on spe­cific points or pieces of in­form­a­tion from a source but not on its spe­cific words.
  • ▪ 为上述目的引用:
  • ▪  Quote for these pur­poses:
  • —文字本身就是你的证据,你需要将它们与原始资料中的文字一模一样地呈现出来。
  • —The words them­selves are your evid­ence, and you need to present them ex­actly as they ap­pear in the ori­ginal source.
  • —这些话非常新颖或表达得非常优美,因此引用比改写更有用。
  • —The words are so strik­ingly ori­ginal or el­eg­antly ex­pressed that it is use­ful to quote rather than para­phrase.
  • —这些词语清晰或令人难忘地表达了关键概念,引用它们有助于构建更深入的讨论。
  • —The words ex­press key con­cepts so clearly or mem­or­ably that quot­ing them helps to frame an ex­ten­ded dis­cus­sion.
  • —这些话出自一位权威人士之口,他支持你的说法。
  • —The words are from an au­thor­ity who backs up your claims.
  • —这些话表达了你不同意的观点,你想通过准确地陈述出来来表明你的公正。
  • —The words ex­press a view you dis­agree with, and you want to demon­strate your fair­ness by stat­ing it ex­actly.

对于每一处摘要、释义或引文,请以适当的格式标注其参考文献信息(参见12.8节本章的“快速提示”)。记住,你的目标是传达你的观点和论证,因此不要只是简单地将来源的摘要、释义和引文拼凑在一起,只添加少量你自己的文字(参见10.3节)。如果你是学生,你的老师会对此感到失望;而面向高级研究的读者则会直接拒绝这种拼凑之作。

For every sum­mary, para­phrase, or quo­ta­tion, cite its bib­li­o­graphic data in the ap­pro­pri­ate style (see 12.8 and this chapter’s Quick Tip). Re­mem­ber that your goal is to com­mu­nic­ate your ideas and ar­gu­ment, so don’t just stitch to­gether sum­mar­ies, para­phrases, and quo­ta­tions of your sources with few words of your own (see 10.3). If you are a stu­dent, your teacher will find such work dis­ap­point­ing, and audi­ences for ad­vanced re­search re­ject such patch­works out of hand.

12.2  撰写公平摘要

12.2  Cre­at­ing a Fair Sum­mary

当某个信息来源只有要点与你的论点相关时,可以使用摘要来概括信息。好的摘要会省略细节,因此比原文更简洁。在某些情况下,摘要可以涵盖信息来源的所有要点,但并非总是如此。你可以专注于与你的论点最相关的要点和信息。但是,你不能过度解读信息来源,以至于歪曲其原意或改变其整体含义。这需要你运用一些判断力。

Use a sum­mary to re­port in­form­a­tion from a source when only its main points are rel­ev­ant to your ar­gu­ment. Be­cause a good sum­mary leaves out de­tails, it is shorter than the ori­ginal. In some cases, a sum­mary will cover all of a source’s main points but not al­ways. It is fine to fo­cus on the points and in­form­a­tion most rel­ev­ant to your ar­gu­ment. But you can­not slant your sum­mary so much that you mis­rep­res­ent your source or change its over­all mean­ing. It’s an­other case in which you’ll have to ex­er­cise some judg­ment.

12.3  创建公平的释义

12.3  Cre­at­ing a Fair Para­phrase

当你进行释义时,就是用你自己的话重述原文。因此,释义的篇幅通常与原文相仿。一些新手研究者可能会疑惑,既然直接引用更简单也更安全(使用原文的原话更难歪曲其含义),为什么还要费力进行释义呢?原因有二。首先,释义而非直接引用,能让你更关注原文的思想而非措辞。这不仅能向读者展示理解原文,还能展现你理解原文的方式。其次,由于释义保留了自己的语言风格,你的论文或演讲会显得更加连贯统一,而不会像直接引用原文那样频繁切换。

When you para­phrase, you re­state a pas­sage from a source in your own words. For this reason, a para­phrase is usu­ally about the same length as the ori­ginal. Some new re­search­ers won­der why they should bother to para­phrase when quot­ing would be easier and safer (it’s harder to dis­tort a source’s mean­ing if you use its ex­act words). There are a couple of reas­ons. When you para­phrase rather than quote, you fo­cus at­ten­tion on a source’s ideas rather than its words. You show your audi­ence not just that you un­der­stand the source but how you un­der­stand it. Also, be­cause you main­tain your own voice, your pa­per or present­a­tion will seem more uni­fied than it oth­er­wise would if it con­stantly moves between your sources’ words and your own.

但改写原文可能很难,因为原文的措辞很容易在你脑海中挥之不去。这里有个小技巧:改写时,先通读原文,直到你觉得自己完全理解为止。然后,不要再看原文,大声地把你的理解表达出来,就像在给听众讲解一样。当你对自己的表达感到满意后,再把它写下来。例如,以下摘自马尔科姆·格拉德威尔的《异类:成功人士的故事》。

But para­phras­ing can be hard be­cause a source’s words can get into your head and stay there. Here’s a tip: When you para­phrase, read the pas­sage un­til you think you fully un­der­stand it. Then, without look­ing back at the source, state your un­der­stand­ing out loud as though you were ex­plain­ing it to a listener. When you are happy with your spoken ver­sion, write it down. For ex­ample, here is a pas­sage from Mal­colm Glad­well’s Out­liers: The Story of Suc­cess.

成就是天赋加上准备的结果。这种观点的缺陷在于,心理学家越深入研究天才人士的职业生涯,就越会发现先天天赋的作用似乎越小,而后天准备的作用似乎越大。(38)

Achieve­ment is tal­ent plus pre­par­a­tion. The prob­lem with this view is that the closer psy­cho­lo­gists look at the ca­reers of the gif­ted, the smal­ler the role in­nate tal­ent seems to play and the big­ger the role pre­par­a­tion seems to play. (38)

这段改写与原文有明显的区别:

This para­phrase is suf­fi­ciently dis­tinct from the ori­ginal pas­sage:

正如格拉德威尔在总结对成功人士的研究时所观察到的那样,我们往往高估了天赋的作用,低估了准备的作用(38)。

As Glad­well ob­serves, sum­mar­iz­ing stud­ies on the highly suc­cess­ful, we tend to over­es­tim­ate the role of tal­ent and un­der­es­tim­ate that of pre­par­a­tion (38).

我们借鉴了格拉德威尔的观点,并用自己的语言重新表述。另外,请注意,我们没有给“天赋”或“准备”加上引号。我们认为这些词语足够常用,可以直接使用。

We took Glad­well’s idea and put it in our own words. No­tice also that we chose not to put tal­ent or pre­par­a­tion in quo­ta­tion marks. We de­cided that those words are com­mon enough to use as our own.

这个改写版本与原文过于接近:

This para­phrase is too close to the ori­ginal pas­sage:

成功似乎取决于天赋和准备的结合。然而,当心理学家仔细研究那些天赋异禀的人及其……在职业生涯中,他们发现与准备相比,天赋的作用要小得多(Gladwell 38)。

Suc­cess seems to de­pend on a com­bin­a­tion of tal­ent and pre­par­a­tion. How­ever, when psy­cho­lo­gists closely ex­am­ine the gif­ted and their ca­reers, they dis­cover that in­nate tal­ent plays a much smal­ler role than pre­par­a­tion (Glad­well 38).

如果你能用手指沿着句子滑动,找到与原文表达相同意思且顺序一致的相似词语,那么你的改写就太接近原文了。请重写。

If you can run your fin­ger along your sen­tences and find sim­ilar words ex­press­ing the same ideas in the same or­der as they ap­pear in your source, your para­phrase is too close. Try again.

12.4  使用直接引用

12.4  Us­ing Dir­ect Quo­ta­tions

直接引用可以通过以下两种方式之一来表示:

Sig­nal dir­ect quo­ta­tions in one of two ways:

  • ▪ 对于少于一百字左右的引文,请使用行内引用,即将引用的文字放在与正文同一行,并用引号将其括起来。
  • ▪  For a quo­ta­tion shorter than a hun­dred words or so, use a run-in quo­ta­tion by put­ting the quoted lan­guage on the same line as your text and en­clos­ing it in quo­ta­tion marks.
  • ▪ 对于较长的引用,请使用单独的缩进引用块,不加引号。
  • ▪  For a longer quo­ta­tion, use a block quo­ta­tion set off as a sep­ar­ate, in­den­ted unit, without quo­ta­tion marks.

您可以通过三种方式在文本中插入连续引用和块引用:

You can in­sert run-in and block quo­ta­tions in your text in three ways:

  • ▪ 在引文中插入一些说明词(作者说根据作者的说法,正如作者所说,等等)。

    正如历史学家蒂娅·迈尔斯所解释的那样,“尽管笛卡尔二元论在西方哲学中占据主导地位,它提出了精神和物质之间的明确分离,但被奴役的黑人知道,人可以被当作物品对待,物品比人更有价值”(268)。

    正如历史学家蒂娅·迈尔斯所解释的那样:

    尽管笛卡尔二元论在西方哲学中占据主导地位,主张精神与物质泾渭分明,但被奴役的黑人深知人可以被当作物品对待,而物品的价值甚至高于人。深受这种可怕认知影响的非裔美国人或许是最早提出事物无常本质的理论家。在这种理解下,他们与美洲原住民——这片大陆上最早的造物者——不谋而合。美洲原住民在他们的故事中,并通过他们的行动,印证了一种信念:许多事物都具有某种精神,并且能够彼此关联。(268)

  • ▪  Drop in the quo­ta­tion with a few identi­fy­ing words (Au­thor says, Ac­cord­ing to Au­thor, As Au­thor puts it, etc.).

    As his­tor­ian Tiya Miles ex­plains, “Des­pite the prom­in­ence of a Cartesian du­al­ity in West­ern philo­sophy that pro­posed a clear split between spirit and mat­ter, en­slaved Blacks knew that people could be treated like things and things prized over people” (268).

    As his­tor­ian Tiya Miles ex­plains:

    Des­pite the prom­in­ence of a Cartesian du­al­ity in West­ern philo­sophy that pro­posed a clear split between spirit and mat­ter, en­slaved Blacks knew that people could be treated like things and things prized over people. Awash in this aw­ful know­ledge, African Amer­ic­ans may have been early the­or­ists of the mer­cur­ial nature of things. In this un­der­stand­ing, they would have joined Nat­ive Amer­ic­ans, the first thing-makers on this con­tin­ent who af­firmed in their stor­ies and lived through their ac­tions a be­lief that many things have a kind of spirit and are cap­able of re­la­tion­ship. (268)

  • ▪ 用一句话来解释或描述引文。

    历史学家蒂娅·迈尔斯认为,奴隶制所促进的物质世界观念挑战了西方占主导地位的形而上学假设,并且与美洲原住民的观念有相似之处:“尽管……(268)。”

  • ▪  In­tro­duce the quo­ta­tion with a sen­tence that in­ter­prets or char­ac­ter­izes it.

    His­tor­ian Tiya Miles ar­gues that the con­cep­tion of the ma­ter­ial world fostered by slavery chal­lenges dom­in­ant West­ern meta­phys­ical as­sump­tions and has af­fin­it­ies with that of In­di­gen­ous Amer­ican peoples: “Des­pite the prom­in­ence of . . .” (268).

  • 将引文融入你自己的句子语法中。你可以结合释义来运用这种技巧,以强调原文中特别有意义或令人印象深刻的短语。(请注意,“可能”这个动词和“非裔美国人”这两个词组非常常见,无需引用。)

    历史学家蒂娅·迈尔斯认为,奴隶制的经历所培养的“可怕的认知”,即“人可以被当作物品对待,物品比人更有价值”,可能使非裔美国人成为“事物变化无常的早期理论家”(268)。

    只要不改变引文的意思,就可以对其进行修改。删除部分用三个点(称为省略号)表示,修改部分用方括号表示。以下版本修改了引文,使其符合作者句子的语法结构:

    历史学家蒂娅·迈尔斯认为,因为“他们每天都生活在对人类与非人类之间模糊界限的恐惧之中……非裔美国人可能是事物变化无常本质的早期理论家”(268)。

  • ▪  Weave the quo­ta­tion into the gram­mar of your own sen­tence. You can use this tech­nique com­bined with para­phrase to em­phas­ize par­tic­u­larly mean­ing­ful or mem­or­able phrases from the ori­ginal. (Note that the verb “may have” and the term “African Amer­ic­ans” are com­mon enough that they need not be quoted.)

    His­tor­ian Tiya Miles ar­gues that the “aw­ful know­ledge,” fostered by the ex­per­i­ence of slavery, that “people could be treated like things and things prized over people” may have made African Amer­ic­ans “early the­or­ists of the mer­cur­ial nature of things” (268).

    You can modify a quo­ta­tion so long as you don’t change its mean­ing and you sig­nal de­le­tions with three dots (called el­lipses) and changes with square brack­ets. This ver­sion mod­i­fies the quo­ta­tion to fit the gram­mar of the writer’s sen­tence:

    His­tor­ian Tiya Miles ar­gues that be­cause “[t]hey lived each day in haunted aware­ness of the thin bound­ary line between hu­man and non-hu­man. . . . African Amer­ic­ans may have been early the­or­ists of the mer­cur­ial nature of things” (268).

12.5  混合使用概括、释义和引用

12.5  Mix­ing Sum­mary, Para­phrase, and Quo­ta­tion

在实践中,经验丰富的作者经常会将概括、释义和引用结合起来使用。例如,当你在自己的句子中融入一段引文时,这个句子通常会包含一些释义(释义部分已加下划线):

In prac­tice, ex­per­i­enced writers of­ten mix sum­mary, para­phrase, and quo­ta­tion. For ex­ample, when you weave a quo­ta­tion into your own sen­tence, that sen­tence usu­ally in­cludes some para­phrase (the para­phrase is un­der­lined):

在讨论宗教时,波斯纳谈到美国社会时说,“一个显著的特点是……宗教多元化”。他认为,要了解社会规范对我们的行为的控制程度,我们应该考虑“宗教作为此类规范的来源和执行者的历史重要性”(299)。

In his dis­cus­sion of re­li­gion, Pos­ner says of Amer­ican so­ci­ety that “a not­able fea­ture . . . is [its] re­li­gious plur­al­ism.” He ar­gues that to un­der­stand how well so­cial norms con­trol what we do, we should con­sider “the his­tor­ical im­port­ance of re­li­gion as both a source and en­for­cer of such norms” (299).

同样,你也可以在摘要中嵌入引文。运用这种技巧,可以充分利用来源中令人印象深刻的短语。或者在不放弃自身风格或声音的前提下,引入关键术语和概念。

You can sim­il­arly em­bed quo­ta­tions in a sum­mary. Use this tech­nique to take ad­vant­age of a par­tic­u­larly mem­or­able phrase from your source or to re­cruit key terms and con­cepts without sur­ren­der­ing your own style or voice.

12.6  向读者展示证据的相关性

12.6  Show­ing Read­ers How Evid­ence Is Rel­ev­ant

正如我们在第七章中提到的,证据很少能自行说明问题,尤其是长篇引文、图片或复杂的图表(参见7.5.5)。你必须解释你希望读者从中获得什么,才能更好地阐述这些证据。当你引用原始资料中的段落时,要用自己的语言分析或解读它,说明它如何支持你的观点。否则,读者可能无法理解其中的联系。解释的长度应与引文的长度成正比:通常一两句话就能解释一段短引文,但一段长引文可能需要一段或更多的篇幅。不要吝惜解释:记住,读者感兴趣的是你的观点,而不仅仅是你的证据。图表也同样适用(参见第十三章)。

As we noted in chapter 7, evid­ence rarely speaks for it­self, es­pe­cially not long quo­ta­tions, im­ages, or com­plex charts or tables (see 7.5.5). You must speak for such evid­ence by ex­plain­ing what you want your read­ers to get out of it. When you quote a pas­sage from a primary source, ana­lyze or in­ter­pret it for your read­ers by stat­ing in your own words how it sup­ports your point. If you don’t, they may not get the con­nec­tion. The length of your ex­plan­a­tion should be pro­por­tional to the length of your quo­ta­tion: you can of­ten ex­plain a short quo­ta­tion in a sen­tence or two, but a long block quo­ta­tion might re­quire a para­graph or more. Don’t skimp on your ex­plan­a­tion: re­mem­ber that your read­ers are in­ter­ested in your ideas, not just your evid­ence. The same holds for charts and tables (see chapter 13).

12.7  引用来源的社会重要性

12.7  The So­cial Im­port­ance of Cit­ing Sources

正确引用文献,尊重他人的贡献,绝非仅仅是一种形式。它是你参与学术共同体的重要途径之一,尤其当你的研究生涯日渐深入时更是如此。通过引用,你可以展现他人对你的影响,并表明你希望吸引哪类读者。例如,如果你渴望在某个期刊上发表文章,不妨引用该期刊的部分文献,以证明你不仅熟悉本领域的文献,也了解该期刊所代表的特定争论和观点。事实上,许多经验丰富的研究人员在浏览文献时,首先会查看参考文献,因为参考文献能够让他们了解作者所面向的研究群体。

Giv­ing credit to oth­ers by prop­erly cit­ing your sources is more than just a form­al­ity. It is one of the main ways you par­ti­cip­ate in a re­search com­munity, es­pe­cially as you be­come more ad­vanced as a re­searcher. Through your cita­tions, you show how oth­ers have in­flu­enced you, and you sig­nal the kind of reader that you hope will be in­ter­ested in your ideas in turn. For ex­ample, if you as­pire to pub­lish in a cer­tain journal, cite some sources from it to show that you are fa­mil­iar not just with your field’s gen­eral lit­er­at­ure but with the spe­cific de­bates and per­spect­ives that journal rep­res­ents. In fact, when skim­ming a source, many ex­per­i­enced re­search­ers turn to the cita­tions first, be­cause the cita­tions let them know which re­search com­munity the au­thor is ad­dress­ing.

12.7.1  引用对您有益

12.7.1  Cita­tions Be­ne­fit You

正确的引用不仅能避免被指控抄袭,还能提升你的学术信誉。首先,读者不会信任他们找不到的资料来源。如果你没有充分注明出处,导致读者找不到你的资料来源,他们就不会相信你的证据;如果他们不相信你的证据,他们就不会相信你的论点,也不会相信你这个人。其次,许多读者认为,如果作家连小事都做不好,就不能指望他们在大事上做得更好。这或许有失公允,但却是事实。

Cor­rect cita­tions pro­tect you from a charge of pla­gi­ar­ism, but bey­ond that, they con­trib­ute to your ethos. First, read­ers don’t trust sources they can’t find. If they can’t find your sources be­cause you failed to doc­u­ment them ad­equately, they won’t trust your evid­ence; and if they don’t trust your evid­ence, they won’t trust your ar­gu­ment or you. Second, many read­ers be­lieve that when writers can’t get the little things right, they can’t be trus­ted on the big ones. That may not be fair, but it’s a fact.

12.7.2  引用有助于读者理解

12.7.2  Cita­tions Help Your Read­ers

读者在阅读您的论文之前、之中和之后都会使用参考文献。在阅读之前,许多经验丰富的读者会快速浏览您的参考文献列表,以了解您参考了哪些文献,又遗漏了哪些。在阅读过程中,读者会利用参考文献来评估您论据的可靠性、时效性和完整性。如果论文的参考文献过时或全部都是近期文献,读者可能会对此持怀疑态度。但如果论文的参考文献范围广泛且深入,就能让读者放心。最后,正如您依靠参考文献来构建自己的文献路径一样,一些读者也会依靠您的参考文献列表来构建他们的文献路径。

Read­ers use cita­tions be­fore, while, and after they read your pa­per. Be­fore, many ex­per­i­enced read­ers will pre­view your pa­per by skim­ming your list of sources to see whose work you read and whose you didn’t. As they read, read­ers use cita­tions to as­sess the re­li­ab­il­ity, cur­rency, and com­plete­ness of your evid­ence. Read­ers can be skep­tical of pa­pers whose sources are out­dated or all very re­cent. But pa­pers whose cita­tions show a range and depth of sources re­as­sure read­ers. Fi­nally, just as you de­pended on cita­tions to start your bib­li­o­graphic trail, so will some read­ers de­pend on your list to start theirs.

12.7.3  引用:尊重你的信息来源

12.7.3  Cita­tions Honor Your Sources

很少有学术研究者能靠撰写诸如“1825-1850年俄亥俄州教育”之类的文章致富。他们的回报并非金钱,而是因严谨的工作而赢得的声誉,以及同行们尊重他们的研究成果并予以引用的喜悦——即便他们持有不同的观点。你所引用的文献作者或许永远不会知道,但这并不重要。当你引用文献时,你就是在承认自己从中汲取了知识,以此表达对他们的尊重。简而言之,当你完整、准确地引用文献时,你就是在维护和丰富学术共同体,而正是这种共同体赋予了书面研究以学术价值和社会价值。

Few aca­demic re­search­ers get rich writ­ing on top­ics such as “Ohio edu­ca­tion, 1825–1850.” Their re­ward isn’t money; it’s the repu­ta­tion they earn for do­ing good work and the pleas­ure they take in know­ing that col­leagues re­spect it enough to cite it—even in dis­agree­ment. The au­thors of your sources may never know you cited them, but that doesn’t mat­ter. When you cite sources, you honor them by ac­know­ledging your in­tel­lec­tual debts. In short, when you cite sources fully and ac­cur­ately, you sus­tain and en­rich the sense of com­munity that gives writ­ten re­search both its schol­arly and so­cial value.

12.8  四种常见的引用格式

12.8  Four Com­mon Cita­tion Styles

如果我们都采用相同的引用格式,似乎会更方便,但我们并没有这样做,这其中是有原因的。引用格式之间的诸多差异看似吹毛求疵、无关紧要,但对读者来说却至关重要。因此,务必弄清楚你应该使用哪种格式,并参考相应的指南。(你也可以在网上找到可靠的指南。)

It might seem easier if we all cited sources in the same style, but there are good reas­ons we don’t. The many dif­fer­ences among cita­tion styles can seem picky and ir­rel­ev­ant, but they mat­ter to read­ers. So be sure to find out which style you should use, and con­sult the proper guide. (You can also find re­li­able on­line guides.)

有些老师坚持要求学生学习手动创建参考文献。这是因为了解某个领域的引用规范可以让你更好地了解该领域重视的文献来源和证据类型。例如,像文学研究这样高度依赖引用的领域,通常会偏好特定的引用格式。这种格式允许精确定位特定页码、段落甚至行。一些对信息来源时效性要求较高的领域,例如计算机科学和数据科学的某些分支,更倾向于使用强调出版日期的格式。

Some teach­ers in­sist that stu­dents learn to cre­ate cita­tions manu­ally. That’s be­cause learn­ing a field’s cita­tion con­ven­tions can tell you much about the kinds of sources and evid­ence it val­ues. For ex­ample, fields that rely heav­ily on quo­ta­tion, like lit­er­ary stud­ies, prefer cita­tion formats that al­low spe­cific pages, pas­sages, and even lines to be loc­ated pre­cisely. Fields that place a premium on sources’ cur­rency, like some branches of com­puter sci­ence and data sci­ence, prefer styles that em­phas­ize their pub­lic­a­tion dates.

但如今,许多引文创建工作都可以自动化。许多研究人员使用引文软件自动生成他们选择的格式的引文,许多学术数据库也支持导出多种格式的引文。如果你是一名学生,务必了解老师的观点:有些老师鼓励这种做法,而有些老师则反对。同时,也要注意自动生成的引文并非完美无缺;了解其中的细节将有助于你识别并修正常见的错误和遗漏。

But today, much of the work of cre­at­ing cita­tions can be auto­mated. Many re­search­ers use cita­tion soft­ware to auto­mat­ic­ally gen­er­ate cita­tions in the style they choose, and many aca­demic data­bases will ex­port cita­tions in any num­ber of styles. If you are a stu­dent, be sure you know your teacher’s view: some teach­ers en­cour­age this prac­tice while oth­ers ob­ject to it. And be aware that auto­mat­ic­ally gen­er­ated cita­tions aren’t per­fect; a know­ledge of the de­tails will help you to identify and fix the kinds of er­rors and omis­sions that com­monly oc­cur.

对于学术研究而言,有两种基本模式,作者-标题作者-日期,每种模式都有两种常见版本。

For aca­demic re­search, there are two ba­sic pat­terns, au­thor-title and au­thor-date, each with two com­mon ver­sions.

12.8.1  两种基本模式:作者-标题和作者-日期

12.8.1  Two Ba­sic Pat­terns: Au­thor-Title and Au­thor-Date

所有引文格式都以作者、编辑或其他负责该来源的人员的姓名开头。我们根据作者姓名之后的内容来区分不同的引用格式。如果标题位于作者姓名之后,则该格式称为“作者-标题”

All cita­tion forms be­gin with the name of the au­thor, ed­itor, or who­ever else is re­spons­ible for the source. We dis­tin­guish styles by what fol­lows the au­thor. If the title fol­lows the au­thor, the style is called au­thor-title.

Ghosh, Amitav. 《肉豆蔻的诅咒:危机星球的寓言》。芝加哥大学出版社,2021年。

Ghosh, Amitav. The Nut­meg’s Curse: Par­ables for a Planet in Crisis. Uni­ver­sity of Chicago Press, 2021.

这种模式在人文学科中很常见。

This pat­tern is com­mon in the hu­man­it­ies.

如果日期跟在作者后面,则这种格式称为作者-日期

If the date fol­lows the au­thor, the style is called au­thor-date.

Ghosh, Amitav. 2021. 《肉豆蔻的诅咒:危机星球的寓言》。芝加哥大学出版社。

Ghosh, Amitav. 2021. The Nut­meg’s Curse: Par­ables for a Planet in Crisis. Uni­ver­sity of Chicago Press.

这种格式常用于自然科学和大多数社会科学领域,因为在这些快速发展的领域,读者希望迅速了解资料的年代。如果日期出现在引文的开头,他们就能更容易地找到它。

This pat­tern is used in the nat­ural sci­ences and most of the so­cial sci­ences be­cause in those rap­idly chan­ging fields, read­ers want to know quickly how old a source is. They can spot dates more eas­ily when they come at the be­gin­ning of a cita­tion.

12.8.2  两种作者-标题格式

12.8.2  Two Au­thor-Title Styles

作者-标题格式有两种版本,每种版本都基于一本著名的格式手册。

There are two ver­sions of au­thor-title style, each based on a well-known style manual.

  • ▪  芝加哥作者-标题格式: 《芝加哥格式手册》,第18版(芝加哥大学出版社,2024)。有时也称为图拉比安格式,它基于一本广泛使用的简明手册:凯特·L·图拉比安,《研究论文、学位论文和毕业论文写作手册》,第9版(芝加哥大学出版社,2018)。使用此格式时,您需要在参考文献列表中列出所有参考文献,并在正文中使用脚注或尾注进行引用。
  • ▪  Chicago Au­thor-Title Style: The Chicago Manual of Style, 18th ed. (Uni­ver­sity of Chicago Press, 2024). It is some­times called Tur­a­bian style, based on a widely used con­densed manual: Kate L. Tur­a­bian, A Manual for Writers of Re­search Pa­pers, Theses, and Dis­ser­ta­tions, 9th ed. (Uni­ver­sity of Chicago Press, 2018). When us­ing this style, you list your sources in a bib­li­o­graphy and cite them in your text with foot­notes or end­notes.
  • ▪  MLA格式: 《MLA手册》,第9版(现代语言协会,2021)。您很可能在文学或写作课程中学习MLA格式。在这种格式中,您需要列出参考文献,并在正文中用括号注明出处。
  • ▪  MLA Style: MLA Hand­book, 9th ed. (Mod­ern Lan­guage As­so­ci­ation, 2021). You are most likely to learn MLA style in a lit­er­at­ure or com­pos­i­tion course. In this style, you give a list of works cited and cite your sources par­en­thet­ic­ally in your text.

这些风格仅在一些细微之处有所不同,但这些细节很重要,因此务必参考正确的风格指南。

These styles dif­fer only in minor de­tails, but those de­tails mat­ter, so be sure to con­sult the proper style guide.

12.8.3  两种作者-日期格式

12.8.3  Two Au­thor-Date Styles

作者-日期格式有两种版本,每种版本都基于一本著名的格式手册。

There are two ver­sions of au­thor-date style, each based on a well-known style manual.

  • ▪  芝加哥作者-日期格式:这种格式在《芝加哥格式手册》中有详细描述,有时也称为图拉比安格式。使用这种格式时,您需要在参考文献列表中列出所有参考文献,并在正文中用括号注明。
  • ▪  Chicago Au­thor-Date Style: This style is also de­scribed in The Chicago Manual of Style and some­times called Tur­a­bian style. When us­ing it, you list your sources in a bib­li­o­graphy and cite them par­en­thet­ic­ally in your text.
  • ▪  APA格式: 《美国心理学会出版手册》,第7版(美国心理学会,2020)。该格式也使用括号内引用。
  • ▪  APA Style: Pub­lic­a­tion Manual of the Amer­ican Psy­cho­lo­gical As­so­ci­ation, 7th ed. (Amer­ican Psy­cho­lo­gical As­so­ci­ation, 2020). This style uses par­en­thet­ical cita­tions as well.

与作者-标题格式一样,这些格式仅在一些细微之处有所不同。但同样,这些细节至关重要,因此请务必严格按照您所使用格式的规定进行操作,包括最后一个逗号、空格和首字母大写。

Like the au­thor-title styles, these styles dif­fer only in minor de­tails. But again, those de­tails mat­ter, so be sure to fol­low the pre­scrip­tions of the style you use down to the last comma, space, and cap­ital let­ter.

12.9  防止无意抄袭

12.9  Guard­ing against In­ad­vert­ent Pla­gi­ar­ism

如果你在写作时不够谨慎,可能会让读者误以为你是在盗用他人的作品。学生们都知道,在网上购买论文或从朋友那里“借”来的论文上署名是作弊。大多数学生也知道,以下情况也是作弊:他们把直接从来源复制的长篇段落冒充为自己原创的作品,或者说是完全通过人工智能生成而创作的。

If you are not care­ful as you draft, you may lead read­ers to think that you are try­ing to pass off as your own the work of an­other writer. Stu­dents know they cheat when they put their name on a pa­per pur­chased on­line or “bor­rowed” from a friend. Most also know they cheat when they pass off as their own long pas­sages copied dir­ectly from their sources or cre­ated whole­sale through gen­er­at­ive AI.

无论有意还是无意,如果你做了以下任何一件事,都可能被指控抄袭:

You risk be­ing charged with pla­gi­ar­ism when, in­ten­tion­ally or not, you do any of the fol­low­ing:

  • ▪ 你引用、转述或概括了某个来源,但没有注明出处。
  • ▪  You quote, para­phrase, or sum­mar­ize a source but fail to cite it.
  • ▪ 你使用了来源的原话,并且也引用了来源,但是你没有将这些话放在引号里或放在引用块中。
  • ▪  You use the ex­act words of a source and you do cite it, but you fail to put those words in quo­ta­tion marks or in a block quo­ta­tion.
  • ▪ 你改写了某个来源并引用了它,但你使用的词语与来源的词语非常相似,以至于任何人都能看出你在改写时逐字逐句地照搬了来源。
  • ▪  You para­phrase a source and cite it, but you use words so sim­ilar to those of the source that any­one can see that as you para­phrased, you fol­lowed the source word by word.
  • ▪ 你使用了来自某个来源的想法或方法,但没有注明出处。
  • ▪  You use ideas or meth­ods from a source but fail to cite it.

12.9.1  引用、转述或概括均须注明出处

12.9.1  Cite the Source of Every Quo­ta­tion, Para­phrase, or Sum­mary

每次使用原文时,即使只是转述或概括,也必须注明出处。如果引文、转述或概括来自同一来源的不同页面,则需分别注明。如果转述或概括跨越多个段落,则只需在文末注明一次即可。(本章末尾的“快速提示”提供了在正文中引用来源的指导。)

You must cite a source every time you use its words, even if you only para­phrase or sum­mar­ize them. If the quo­ta­tions, para­phrases, or sum­mar­ies come from dif­fer­ent pages of a source, cite each one in­di­vidu­ally. If a para­phrase or sum­mary ex­tends over sev­eral para­graphs, cite it only once at the end. (The Quick Tip at the end of this chapter of­fers guid­ance on cit­ing sources in your text.)

作者常常会在不知不觉中犯下抄袭的错误,并非因为他们不知道应该引用哪些内容,而是因为他们容易分不清哪些文字是自己的原创,哪些是借用的。因此,我们在第四章中强调,在笔记中要区分引文、释义、对原文的总结以及你自己的分析、思考和评论。添加引文后务必立即注明出处,以免日后忘记。尤其要注意在撰写释义或总结时就注明出处;否则,你甚至可能忘记它源自何处。

Writers of­ten slip into in­ad­vert­ent pla­gi­ar­ism not be­cause they don’t know what they should cite but be­cause they lose track of which words are theirs and which are bor­rowed. That’s why in chapter 4 we urged you to dis­tin­guish in your notes between quo­ta­tions, para­phrases, and sum­mar­ies of sources and your own ana­lyses, thoughts, and com­ment­ary. Al­ways in­clude the cita­tion as soon as you add a quo­ta­tion be­cause you may not re­mem­ber to do so later. Be es­pe­cially care­ful to cite a para­phrase or sum­mary as you draft it; oth­er­wise, you may not even re­mem­ber that it ori­gin­ated with a source.

12.9.2  即使注明了出处,也要标注所有引用。

12.9.2  Sig­nal Every Quo­ta­tion, Even When You Cite Its Source

即使你引用了出处,读者也必须清楚地知道哪些词不是你的。然而,当你引用短语或单个词语时,情况就变得复杂了。请看历史学家贾雷德·戴蒙德所著《枪炮、病菌与钢铁》中的以下句子:

Even when you cite a source, read­ers must know ex­actly which words are not yours. It gets com­plic­ated, how­ever, when you quote phrases or in­di­vidual words. Con­sider these sen­tences from Guns, Germs, and Steel by the his­tor­ian Jared Dia­mond:

由于技术会催生更多技术,一项发明的传播的重要性可能超过其最初发明的重要性。技术史体现了所谓的自催化过程:也就是说,随着时间的推移,这一过程会加速发展,因为它能够自我催化。(Diamond 1997, 258)

Be­cause tech­no­logy be­gets more tech­no­logy, the im­port­ance of an in­ven­tion’s dif­fu­sion po­ten­tially ex­ceeds the im­port­ance of the ori­ginal in­ven­tion. Tech­no­logy’s his­tory ex­em­pli­fies what is termed an autocata­lytic pro­cess: that is, one that speeds up at a rate that in­creases with time, be­cause the pro­cess cata­lyzes it­self. (Dia­mond 1997, 258)

如果你要写关于戴蒙德思想的文章,你可能需要引用他的一些话,比如“发明的重要性”。但你不会把这句话加上引号,因为它没有体现出任何原创性或表达方式。

If you are writ­ing about Dia­mond’s ideas, you would prob­ably have to use some of his words, such as the im­port­ance of an in­ven­tion. But you wouldn’t put that phrase in quo­ta­tion marks be­cause it shows no ori­gin­al­ity of thought or ex­pres­sion.

然而,他的两句话非常引人注目,需要加引号:“技术催生更多技术”和“自催化过程”。例如

Two of his phrases, how­ever, are so strik­ing that they do re­quire quo­ta­tion marks: tech­no­logy be­gets more tech­no­logy and autocata­lytic pro­cess. For ex­ample:

技术的力量超越了单个发明,因为“技术会催生更多的技术”。正如戴蒙德所说,这是一个“自催化过程”(258)。

The power of tech­no­logy goes bey­ond in­di­vidual in­ven­tions be­cause “tech­no­logy be­gets more tech­no­logy.” It is, as Dia­mond puts it, an “autocata­lytic pro­cess” (258).

一旦你引用了这些文字,你就可以再次使用它们,而无需加引号或注明出处:

Once you cite those words, you can use them again without quo­ta­tion marks or cita­tion:

一项发明催生另一项发明,而另一项发明又催生出另一项发明,这个过程就变成了一种自我维持的催化作用,并跨越国界传播开来。

As one in­ven­tion be­gets an­other one and that one still an­other, the pro­cess be­comes a self-sus­tain­ing cata­lysis that spreads across na­tional bound­ar­ies.

这是一个灰色地带:有些人觉得引人注目的词语,对另一些人来说可能并非如此。如果你给太多普通的短语加上引号,读者可能会觉得你很天真;但如果你不按读者认为应该加引号的地方加,他们可能会怀疑你抄袭。毕竟,显得天真总比显得不诚实要好,尤其是在职业生涯初期,所以可以随意使用引号。(但是,你必须遵循你所在领域的标准做法。例如,律师通常会直接引用法规或司法判决的原文,而不加引号。)

This is a gray area: words that seem strik­ing to some are not to oth­ers. If you put quo­ta­tion marks around too many or­din­ary phrases, read­ers might think you’re na­ive, but if you fail to use them when read­ers think you should, they may sus­pect you of pla­gi­ar­ism. Since it’s bet­ter to seem na­ive than dis­hon­est, es­pe­cially early in your ca­reer, use quo­ta­tion marks freely. (You must, how­ever, fol­low the stand­ard prac­tices of your field. Law­yers, for ex­ample, of­ten use the ex­act lan­guage of a stat­ute or ju­di­cial opin­ion with no quo­ta­tion marks.)

12.9.3  不要过于照搬原文

12.9.3  Don’t Para­phrase Too Closely

当你用自己的语言更清晰或更尖锐地表达一个观点时,你就恰当地使用了释义。但读者会如果对方能将你的文字、措辞甚至句子结构与你的来源进行比对,那么就认为你在抄袭(见12.3)。

You para­phrase ap­pro­pri­ately when you rep­res­ent an idea in your own words more clearly or poin­tedly than the source does. But read­ers will think that you pla­gi­ar­ize if they can match your words, phras­ing, or even sen­tence struc­ture with those of your source (see 12.3).

12.9.4  通常情况下,对于非原创观点应注明出处。

12.9.4  Usu­ally Cite a Source for Ideas Not Your Own

基本原则很简单:当读者可能认为你声称某个想法是原创时,就应该注明出处。但实际应用起来,这条规则就变得复杂了,因为我们的想法很少是完全属于自己的。你不需要为每个熟悉的想法都找到并注明出处。但是,当以下两种情况发生时,你就需要注明出处:(1) 该想法与特定人物相关 (2) 该想法足够新颖,尚未成为该领域的常识。例如,许多人注意到,在遭遇车祸或人身攻击等极端危险时刻,时间似乎会变慢。没有人会要求你注明这一观察的出处,因为没有人会认为你是在窃取成果。另一方面,一些研究人员认为,这种感知是由杏仁核记录这些经历的方式造成的。在这种情况下,你就必须注明出处,因为它与这些特定的研究人员密切相关。(如果你借鉴了某个来源独有的方法,也适用同样的原则。)

The ba­sic prin­ciple is simple: cite a source for a bor­rowed idea whenever a reader might think you are claim­ing that it is ori­ginal to you. But when you try to ap­ply it, the rule be­comes more com­plic­ated be­cause few of our ideas are en­tirely our own. You aren’t ex­pec­ted to find and cite a source for every fa­mil­iar idea. But you are ex­pec­ted to cite the source for an idea when (1) the idea is as­so­ci­ated with a spe­cific per­son and (2) it’s new enough not to be part of a field’s com­mon know­ledge. For ex­ample, many people have no­ticed that time seems to slow down dur­ing mo­ments of in­tense danger, such as a car ac­ci­dent or a phys­ical at­tack. No one would ex­pect you to cite the source for that ob­ser­va­tion be­cause no one would think you were tak­ing credit for it. On the other hand, some re­search­ers ar­gue that this per­cep­tion is caused by the way the amy­g­dala cap­tures memor­ies of these ex­per­i­ences. You would have to cite the source of that idea be­cause it is so closely tied to those par­tic­u­lar re­search­ers. (The same prin­ciple ap­plies if you bor­row a method unique to a source.)

12.9.5  无意抄袭也属于抄袭

12.9.5  In­ad­vert­ent Pla­gi­ar­ism Is Still Pla­gi­ar­ism

作为研究者和写作者,你有责任了解何时需要引用来源。教师有时会将无意抄袭视为学生学习学术写作规范的机会——但并非总是如此。如果你不确定如何引用,请咨询你的老师或写作中心(如果可以的话)。经验丰富的研究者和写作者没有任何借口。你可以这样思考这个问题:如果你借鉴了作者的观点,而作者阅读了你的文章,他/她是否会将你的文字或观点(包括释义、概括,甚至是总体思路或方法)视为自己的原创?如果答案是肯定的,那么你必须引用该来源,并将原文用引号括起来,或者用块引用的方式单独列出。

It’s your re­spons­ib­il­ity as a re­searcher and writer to know when you need to cite a source. Teach­ers some­times treat un­in­ten­tional pla­gi­ar­ism as a learn­ing op­por­tun­ity when stu­dents are just learn­ing the con­ven­tions of aca­demic and schol­arly writ­ing—but not al­ways. If you are un­sure how to cite, con­sult with your teacher or your writ­ing cen­ter, if one is avail­able to you. Ex­per­i­enced re­search­ers and writers have no ex­cuse. Here is how to think about this is­sue: If the au­thor whose ideas you bor­rowed read your writ­ing, would that au­thor re­cog­nize your words or ideas, in­clud­ing para­phrases, sum­mar­ies, or even gen­eral ideas or meth­ods as their own? If so, you must cite that source and en­close ex­act words from that source in quo­ta­tion marks or set them off in a block quo­ta­tion.

为什么对无心之失如此大惊小怪?首先,这会损害你的信誉。一次未注明信息来源就可能让读者产生怀疑。你的诚实,对于高年级学生或专业学者而言,可能意味着职业生涯的终结。(我们见过因此而被取消工作机会或拒绝终身教职的案例。)但即使对于初学者来说,诚实也至关重要。你的老师培养你写作的目的并非为了他们,而是为了他人,而他人会根据你引用资料的严谨性和完整性来评判你。其次,抄袭并非无害的行为。即使是无意的,它也会剥夺其他研究人员应得的荣誉,更糟糕的是,它会抹去可能指向该研究的文献路径,从而阻碍整个研究界的进步。

Why the fuss over hon­est slip-ups? First, they harm your cred­ib­il­ity. One fail­ure to ac­know­ledge a source can lead read­ers to doubt your hon­esty, which can be a ca­reer-end­ing judg­ment for an ad­vanced stu­dent or pro­fes­sional aca­demic. (We have seen job of­fers res­cin­ded and ten­ure denied for this reason.) But they mat­ter even to a be­gin­ner. Your teach­ers are pre­par­ing you to write not for them but for oth­ers who will judge you in part by how care­fully and com­pletely you cite your sources. Second, pla­gi­ar­ism is not a vic­tim­less of­fense. Even when in­ad­vert­ent, it de­prives other re­search­ers of de­served credit for their work and, worse, by eras­ing a bib­li­o­graphic trail that could lead to it, hinders an en­tire re­search com­munity.

▶ 小贴士:如何在论文中标注引用

▶ Quick Tip: In­dic­at­ing Cita­tions in Your Pa­per

论文中必须注明所有引用来源。四种最常用的引用格式中有三种——芝加哥作者-日期格式、MLA格式和APA格式(参见12.8节)——使用括号内的信息,引导读者找到来源的具体页码,并提供足够的信息以便在参考文献列表中找到相应的条目。

You must in­dic­ate in your pa­per every place where you use a source. Three of the four most com­mon cita­tion styles—Chicago au­thor-date style, MLA style, and APA style (see 12.8)—use par­en­thet­ical cita­tions that dir­ect read­ers to spe­cific pages in the source, with enough in­form­a­tion to find the cor­res­pond­ing entry in a list of sources.

有人注意到,美国穆斯林青年在应对美国种族政治时,会借鉴黑人流行文化(Khabeer,2016,5-6)。

Some have noted how Muslim Amer­ican youth draw on Black pop­u­lar cul­ture as they nav­ig­ate Amer­ican ra­cial polit­ics (Kha­beer, 2016, 5–6).

如果您使用芝加哥作者-标题格式,您可以改用上标注释编号,引导读者查看页面底部或论文末尾相应编号的注释。

If you use Chicago au­thor-title style, you may in­stead use a raised note num­ber, or su­per­script, that dir­ects read­ers to a cor­res­pond­ingly numbered note at the bot­tom of the page or at the end of the pa­per.

有人注意到,美国穆斯林青年在应对美国种族政治时,会借鉴黑人流行文化。5

5. Su'ad Abdul Khabeer,《穆斯林酷:美国的种族、宗教和嘻哈》(纽约大学出版社,2016 年),第 5-6 页。

Some have noted how Muslim Amer­ican youth draw on Black pop­u­lar cul­ture as they nav­ig­ate Amer­ican ra­cial polit­ics.5

5. Su’ad Ab­dul Kha­beer, Muslim Cool: Race, Re­li­gion, and Hip Hop in the United States (NYU Press, 2016), 5–6.

括号内引用

Par­en­thet­ical Cita­tions

括号内(或文中)引用仅包含读者在论文末尾的参考文献列表中找到该来源所需的信息。根据您所在领域的不同,该列表可能被称为书目、参考文献或引用作品。括号内引用的内容取决于您采用的是作者-标题还是作者-日期格式。例如,如果您在正文中没有提及作者,且参考文献列表中只有该作者的一部作品,以下是引用该作品的作者-标题格式:

A par­en­thet­ical (or in-text) cita­tion in­cludes only the in­form­a­tion a reader needs to loc­ate the source in a list of sources at the end of your pa­per. De­pend­ing on your field, that list will be called your bib­li­o­graphy, ref­er­ences, or works cited. What you in­clude in a par­en­thet­ical cita­tion de­pends on whether you use au­thor-title or au­thor-date cita­tion style. For ex­ample, here are the au­thor-title forms for cit­ing a single-au­thor work if you do not men­tion the au­thor in your sen­tences and you have only one work by that au­thor in your list of sources:

  • 芝加哥格式:作者-标题(作者,页码)
    • 只有一位作者提供了这方面的数据(Kay,220)。
  • Chicago Au­thor-Title (Au­thor, page[s])
    • Only one writer provides data on this mat­ter (Kay, 220).
  • MLA(作者页码)
    • 只有一位作者提供了有关此事的数据(Kay 220)。
  • MLA (Au­thor page[s])
    • Only one writer provides data on this mat­ter (Kay 220).

芝加哥格式通常用于注释(见下一节),但对于重复引用,使用括号内标注可能更合适。如果引用同一来源,则必须添加简短标题,以便读者知道您引用的是哪篇文献。在这种情况下,两种格式的格式相同:

Chicago au­thor-title style is nor­mally used with notes (see next sec­tion), but par­en­thet­ical cita­tions may be use­ful for re­peated ref­er­ences to the same source. If your list of sources in­cludes more than one pub­lic­a­tion by the same au­thor, you must add a short title so that read­ers will know which pub­lic­a­tion you are cit­ing. In this case, the format in both styles is the same:

  • 芝加哥作者-标题格式和MLA格式(作者,简称,页码)
    • 只有一位作者提供了有关此事的资料(Kay,《一生》,220)。
  • Chicago Au­thor-Title and MLA (Au­thor, Short Title, page[s])
    • Only one writer provides data on this mat­ter (Kay, A Life, 220).

在作者-日期格式中,您必须在每个引用中添加日期:

In au­thor-date style, you must add the date to every cita­tion:

  • 芝加哥作者-日期格式(作者日期,页码)
    • 只有一位作者提供了有关此事的资料(Kay 2006,220)。
  • Chicago Au­thor-Date (Au­thor date, page[s])
    • Only one writer provides data on this mat­ter (Kay 2006, 220).
  • APA格式(作者,日期,第xxx页)
    • 只有一位作者提供了有关此事的资料(Kay,2006 年,第 220 页)。
  • APA (Au­thor, date, p. xxx)
    • Only one writer provides data on this mat­ter (Kay, 2006, p. 220).

如果您已经提及作者,无论使用哪种引用格式,都应从引用中删除作者姓名:

If you have men­tioned the au­thor, drop the name from the cita­tion re­gard­less of which style you’re us­ing:

  • Chicago Author-Title 和 MLA: Kay 是唯一提供此方面数据的作者 (220)。
  • Chicago Au­thor-Title and MLA: Kay is the only writer who provides data on this mat­ter (220).
  • 芝加哥作者-日期:凯是唯一一位提供此事项数据的作者(2006 年,220)。
  • Chicago Au­thor-Date: Kay is the only writer who provides data on this mat­ter (2006, 220).
  • APA: Kay 是唯一一位提供此方面数据的作者(2006 年,第 220 页)。
  • APA: Kay is the only writer who provides data on this mat­ter (2006, p. 220).

如果作品有多位作者、引用同一作者同年发表的多部作品、需要在同一段落中引用多个来源等等,则需要遵守额外的引用规则。有关这些规则,请查阅相应的指南。

There are ad­di­tional rules for cita­tions if a work has more than one au­thor, if you cite more than one work by the same au­thor from the same year, if you need to cite mul­tiple sources in a single pas­sage, and so on. For these, con­sult the ap­pro­pri­ate guide.

注释和参考书目

Notes and Bib­li­o­graphy

在芝加哥作者-标题格式中,您可以使用注释(页面底部的脚注或论文末尾的尾注)来引导读者查阅参考文献。注释包含的信息与参考文献条目相同,但格式有三点不同:注释中第一作者的姓名顺序不是“姓,名”,而是“名,姓”;注释中的各个部分之间用逗号分隔,而不是句号;出版信息用括号括起来。

In Chicago au­thor-title style, you use notes—foot­notes at the bot­tom of the page or end­notes fol­low­ing the pa­per—to dir­ect read­ers to sources in a bib­li­o­graphy. Notes in­clude the same in­form­a­tion as a bib­li­o­graphy entry, but the form dif­fers in three ways: notes list the first au­thor’s name not by last name, first name, but first name last name; in­di­vidual ele­ments of a note are sep­ar­ated by com­mas rather than peri­ods; and pub­lic­a­tion data are in par­en­theses.

  • 注释 形式: 5. Su'ad Abdul Khabeer,《穆斯林酷:美国的种族、宗教和嘻哈》(纽约大学出版社,2016 年),第 5-6 页。
  • NOTE FORM: 5. Su’ad Ab­dul Kha­beer, Muslim Cool: Race, Re­li­gion, and Hip Hop in the United States (NYU Press, 2016), 5–6.
  • 参考文献格式: Khabeer , Su'ad Abdul. Muslim Cool: Race, Religion, and Hip Hop in the United States. NYU Press , 2016.
  • BIB­LI­O­GRAPHY FORM: Kha­beer, Su’ad Ab­dul. Muslim Cool: Race, Re­li­gion, and Hip Hop in the United States. NYU Press, 2016.

详情请参阅 Turabian 指南或《芝加哥格式手册》

For de­tails, con­sult the Tur­a­bian guide or The Chicago Manual of Style.

研究人员越来越多地使用括号内引用而非注释,因为注释会重复参考文献中列出的信息。如有疑问,请咨询您的老师或您所在领域的资深研究人员。

Re­search­ers are in­creas­ingly us­ing par­en­thet­ical cita­tions rather than notes be­cause notes du­plic­ate the in­form­a­tion lis­ted in a bib­li­o­graphy. If in doubt, ask your teacher or an ex­per­i­enced re­searcher in your field.

13. 以视觉方式传达证据

13  Com­mu­nic­at­ing Evid­ence Visu­ally

大多数读者更容易理解表格、图表和图形中的定量证据,而不是文字。但某些可视化形式比其他形式更适合特定的数据和信息。在本章中,我们将向您展示如何选择最能帮助读者理解数据及其如何支撑论点的图形形式。

Most read­ers grasp quant­it­at­ive evid­ence more eas­ily in tables, charts, and graphs than they do in words. But some visual forms suit par­tic­u­lar data and mes­sages bet­ter than oth­ers. In this chapter, we show you how to choose the graphic form that best helps read­ers both grasp your data and un­der­stand how they sup­port your ar­gu­ment.

“一图胜千言”这句老话在以研究为基础的论证中往往适用,它能充分展现数值数据的可视化效果。本章将简要概述可用于支持论证的主要图表类型及其修辞用途。如需更全面地了解图表,请参阅本书附录,其中提供了更多关于数据可视化的资源。

The cliché that a pic­ture is worth a thou­sand words is of­ten true in terms of the im­pact that the visual rep­res­ent­a­tion of nu­mer­ical data can have in re­search-based ar­gu­ments. In this chapter, we provide a brief over­view of ma­jor types and rhet­or­ical uses of graph­ics that can sup­port an ar­gu­ment. For a more com­pre­hens­ive treat­ment of graph­ics, see this book’s ap­pendix, which fea­tures ad­di­tional re­sources on the visual rep­res­ent­a­tion of data.

首先,关于术语的说明:我们用“图形”一词来指代所有数据的可视化呈现。传统上,图形分为表格图表。表格是一个由行和列组成的网格。图表则涵盖所有其他图形形式,包括图形、图表、照片、图画和示意图。呈现定量数据的图形又分为图表和图形图表通常由条形、圆形、点或其他形状组成;而图形则由连续的线条组成。

First, a note on ter­min­o­logy: We use the term graph­ics for all visual rep­res­ent­a­tions of data. Tra­di­tion­ally, graph­ics are di­vided into tables and fig­ures. A table is a grid with columns and rows. Fig­ures are all other graphic forms, in­clud­ing graphs, charts, pho­to­graphs, draw­ings, and dia­grams. Fig­ures that present quant­it­at­ive data are di­vided into charts and graphs. Charts typ­ic­ally con­sist of bars, circles, points, or other shapes; graphs con­sist of con­tinu­ous lines.

13.1  选择视觉或语言表达方式

13.1  Choos­ing Visual or Verbal Rep­res­ent­a­tions

当需要呈现的数据数量少且简单时,读者既能通过句子理解数据,也能通过表格理解数据(见表13.1):

When the data you need to present are few and simple, read­ers can grasp them as eas­ily in a sen­tence as in a table (see table 13.1):

2020年,男性平均年收入为64217美元,女性为53387美元,两者相差10830美元。(按百分比计算,女性的收入是男性收入的0.83%。)

In 2020, on av­er­age, men earned $64,217 a year and wo­men $53,387, a dif­fer­ence of $10,830. (In per­cent­age terms, wo­men earned $.83 to every $1 earned by a man.)

表13.1. 2020年男性和女性非农收入中位数(美元)

Table 13.1. Me­dian non-farm salar­ies for men and wo­men ($), 2020

男人

Men

64,217

64,217

女性

Wo­men

53,387

53,387

不同之处

Dif­fer­ence

10,830

10,830

但是,如果您给出的数字过多,如果没有表格(见表13.2)或其他视觉辅助工具,读者将很难理清这些数字:

But if you present more than a few num­bers, read­ers will struggle to keep them straight without a table (see table 13.2) or other visual aid:

1980年至2020年间,男女之间的历史性工资差距显著缩小。1980年,男性非农工作的平均工资中位数为58,428美元,而女性为35,150美元。平均而言,女性的收入仅为男性收入的0.60美元。这一差距随时间推移有所波动,但近年来已缩小至最低点。2000年,女性(43,327美元)和男性(58,772美元)之间的工资差距为26%,但到2020年已缩小至17%,男性的平均收入为64,217美元,而女性为53,387美元。

Between 1980 and 2020, the his­tor­ical wage gap between men and wo­men has con­trac­ted sub­stan­tially. In 1980, the me­dian av­er­age wage for non-farm work for men was $58,428, while for wo­men it was $35,150. On av­er­age wo­men earned $0.60 to every $1 earned by a man. This di­vide has var­ied over time but has shrunk in re­cent years to its low­est point. In 2000, the wage gap between wo­men ($43,327) and men ($58,772) was 26% but nar­rowed in 2020 to 17%, with men’s av­er­age earn­ings of $64,217 com­pared to wo­men’s $53,387.

13.2  选择最有效的图形

13.2  Choos­ing the Most Ef­fect­ive Graphic

当你用图形方式呈现像该段落中那样复杂的数据时,最常见的选择是表格、条形图和折线图,每一种都有其独特的效果。

When you graph­ic­ally present data as com­plex as the data in that para­graph, the most com­mon choices are tables, bar charts, and line graphs, each of which has a dis­tinct­ive ef­fect.

表格看起来精确客观,它强调离散的数字,需要读者自行推断其中的关系或趋势(除非你在引言中明确指出)。

A table seems pre­cise and ob­ject­ive. It em­phas­izes dis­crete num­bers and re­quires read­ers to in­fer re­la­tion­ships or trends on their own (un­less you state them in an in­tro­duct­ory sen­tence).

表13.2. 1980-2020年男女工资差距的变化

Table 13.2. Change in wage gap between men and wo­men, 1980–2020

按性别划分的全职非农劳动者收入中位数(以实际美元 ($) 和百分比 ($) 表示)

Me­dian earn­ings for full-time non-farm work­ers by gender in real dol­lars ($) and by per­cent­age ($)

性别

Gender

1980

1980

1990

1990

2000

2000

2010

2010

2020

2020

男人

Men

58,428

58,428

55,804

55,804

58,772

58,772

59,714

59,714

64,217

64,217

女性

Wo­men

35,150

35,150

39,965

39,965

43,327

43,327

45,937

45,937

53,387

53,387

差价(美元)

Dif­fer­ence ($)

23,278

23,278

15,839

15,839

15,445

15,445

13,777

13,777

10,830

10,830

差距 (%)

Gap (%)

60%

60%

72%

72%

74%

74%

77%

77%

83%

83%

图表和折线图以视觉化的方式呈现数值,虽然不如表格中的精确数字那样精确,但却更具冲击力。不过,图表和折线图也存在差异。柱状图强调的是离散项目之间的对比:

Charts and line graphs present a visual im­age that com­mu­nic­ates val­ues less pre­cisely than do the ex­act num­bers of a table but with more im­pact. But charts and graphs also dif­fer. A bar chart em­phas­izes con­trasts among dis­crete items:

这是一个分组垂直条形图的示例。该图描绘了1980年至2020年间男女工资差距的变化。横轴代表年份,从1980年到2020年,以10年为增量。纵轴代表工资值,从0到70,000,以10,000为增量。图表分为五组,每组三个条形。每组代表一个十年,分别代表男性工资、女性工资以及两者之间的差值。

图 13.1. 1980 年至 2020 年男女工资差距的变化

Fig­ure 13.1. Change in wage gap between men and wo­men, 1980–2020

折线图显示随时间推移发生的连续变化:

A line graph sug­gests con­tinu­ous change over time:

这是一个折线图示例。该折线图描绘了1980年至2020年间男女工资差距的变化。横轴代表年份,从1980年到2020年,以10年为增量。纵轴代表工资值,从0到70,000,以10,000为增量。图中显示了三条线:一条代表男性工资,一条代表女性工资,还有一条代表工资差距的变化。每条线在每个十年节点上都有一个数值。

图 13.2. 1980 年至 2020 年男女工资差距的变化

Fig­ure 13.2. Change in wage gap between men and wo­men, 1980–2020

选择能达到预期效果的形式,而不是你首先想到的那种。如果你是定量研究新手,请将选择范围限制在基本表格、柱状图和折线图上。你的计算机软件可能提供了更多选择,但请忽略那些你不熟悉的选项。如果你正在进行高级研究,读者会期望你使用更多你所在领域常用的图表形式。在这种情况下,请参考表 13.6,其中描述了其他常用图表形式的修辞用途。如果你正在撰写一篇论文或文章,而该领域的研究经常涉及大型数据集中的复杂关系,那么你可能需要考虑更具创意的数据表示方法。(更多资源请参见附录。

Choose the form that achieves the ef­fect you want, not the one that first comes to mind. If you are new to quant­it­at­ive re­search, limit your choices to ba­sic tables, bar charts, and line graphs. Your com­puter soft­ware of­fers more choices, but ig­nore those you are not fa­mil­iar with. If you are do­ing ad­vanced re­search, read­ers will ex­pect you to draw from a lar­ger range of graph­ics favored in your field. In that case, con­sult table 13.6, which de­scribes the rhet­or­ical uses of other com­mon forms. You may have to con­sider even more cre­at­ive ways of rep­res­ent­ing data if you are writ­ing a dis­ser­ta­tion or art­icle in a field that routinely dis­plays com­plex re­la­tion­ships in large data sets. (See the ap­pendix for ad­di­tional re­sources.)

以下是表格、图表和图形的基础知识指南。

What fol­lows is a guide to the ba­sics of tables, charts, and graphs.

13.3  表格、图表和图形的设计

13.3  Design­ing Tables, Charts, and Graphs

演示软件可以制作出令人眼花缭乱的图形,以至于许多作者任由软件决定图形设计。这是个错误的做法。如果图形不能清晰地传达信息,读者根本不会在意它有多么精美。以下是一些设计有效图形的原则。

Present­a­tion soft­ware can cre­ate graph­ics so dazzling that many writers let their soft­ware de­term­ine their design. That is a mis­take. Read­ers don’t care how fancy a graphic is if it doesn’t com­mu­nic­ate its point clearly. Here are some prin­ciples for design­ing ef­fect­ive graph­ics.

13.3.1  为每个图表添加边框,以帮助读者理解

13.3.1  Frame Each Graphic to Help Read­ers Un­der­stand It

用图表来展现复杂的数字关系,往往难以直接说明问题。你必须精心设计图表,让读者明白图表的内容以及它与你的论点之间的关联:

A graphic rep­res­ent­ing com­plex re­la­tion­ships among num­bers rarely speaks for it­self. You must frame it to show read­ers what to see in it and how to un­der­stand its rel­ev­ance to your ar­gu­ment:

  1. 1. 为每个图表添加标签,使其能够描述图表的数据。表格的标签称为标题位于表格左上方;图形的标签称为图例, 位于图形左下方。标题和图例应简洁明了,但又要足够清晰,以便区分每个图表。
    • ▪ 避免将标题或图例设为一般性主题。

    注意:户主

    但是: 2005-2020年单亲家庭和双亲家庭户主的变化

    • ▪ 不要提供背景信息或描述数据所暗示的内容。

    注意: 2012-2022年,在工作人员专业化之前,咨询对抑郁症儿童的效果较弱

    但是:咨询对抑郁症儿童的影响,2012-2022 年

    • ▪ 确保标签能够区分呈现相似数据的图形。

    注意:高血压的风险因素

    但是:伊利诺伊州开罗市男性高血压的风险因素

  2. 1. La­bel every graphic in a way that de­scribes its data. For a table, the la­bel is called a title and is set flush left above the table; for a fig­ure, the la­bel is called a le­gend and is set flush left be­low the fig­ure. Keep titles and le­gends short but de­script­ive enough to dis­tin­guish every graphic from every other one.
    • ▪  Avoid mak­ing the title or le­gend a gen­eral topic.

    NOT: Heads of house­holds

    BUT: Changes in one- and two-par­ent heads of house­holds, 2005–2020

    • ▪  Do not give back­ground in­form­a­tion or char­ac­ter­ize what the data im­ply.

    NOT: Weaker ef­fects of coun­sel­ing on de­pressed chil­dren be­fore pro­fes­sion­al­iz­a­tion of staff, 2012–2022

    BUT: Ef­fect of coun­sel­ing on de­pressed chil­dren, 2012–2022

    • ▪  Be sure la­bels dis­tin­guish graph­ics present­ing sim­ilar data.

    NOT: Risk factors for high blood pres­sure

    BUT: Risk factors for high blood pres­sure among men in Cairo, Illinois

  3. 2. 在表格或图表中插入信息,帮助读者理解数据如何支持你的观点。例如,如果表格中的数字显示出某种趋势,而趋势的大小很重要,则在最后一列中标明变化幅度。如果图表中的某条线因图表中未提及的因素而发生变化,则在图表中添加文字进行解释。

    一张折线图,并在两个重要数据点处附有注释。横轴范围为 2000 年至 2015 年,纵轴范围为 300 至 600,以 50 分为增量。图中有两条线,分别代表数学和语文成绩。第一个注释大约在 2003 年,即两项成绩突然下降之前,注释将此归因于新高中开学后重新划分学区。第二个注释大约在 2009 年,即成绩略有回升之前,注释将此归因于引入了补充数学和阅读课程。

    图 13.3.中城高中 2000-2015 年 SAT 成绩

    1. 尽管重新划分学区后阅读和数学成绩下降了近 100 分,但当引入补充数学和阅读课程后,这一趋势发生了逆转。
    2. 3. 用一句话引出表格或图表,解释如何解读它。然后,重点突出表格或图表中你希望读者关注的内容,特别是引言中提到的任何数字或关系。例如,我们需要研究表 13.3,才能理解它如何支持前面的句子:
    3. 大多数关于汽油消耗量增加的预测都被证明是错误的。

    表 13.3. 1990-2020 年美国国内汽油需求量(单位:十亿加仑)

    1990

    2000

    2010

    2020

    年消耗量

    113.6

    131.9

    137.7

    127.7

    我们需要一个更具信息量的标题,一句话来解释这些数字如何支持或说明论点,以及一些视觉提示来引导我们了解表格中应该看到的内容:

    1. 汽油消费量并未如预期般增长。在2000年代和2010年代,汽油消费量趋于平稳,甚至在2020年出现下降,这很可能是新冠疫情期间隔离措施的影响。
  4. 2. In­sert into the table or fig­ure in­form­a­tion that helps read­ers see how the data sup­port your point. For ex­ample, if num­bers in a table show a trend and the size of the trend mat­ters, in­dic­ate the change in a fi­nal column. If a line on a graph changes in re­sponse to an in­flu­ence not men­tioned on the graph, add text to the im­age to ex­plain it.

    Fig­ure 13.3. SAT scores for Mid-City High, 2000–2015

    1. Al­though read­ing and math scores de­clined by al­most 100 points fol­low­ing re­dis­trict­ing, that trend re­versed when sup­ple­mental math and read­ing pro­grams were in­tro­duced.
    2. 3. In­tro­duce the table or fig­ure with a sen­tence that ex­plains how to in­ter­pret it. Then high­light what in the table or fig­ure you want read­ers to fo­cus on, par­tic­u­larly any num­ber or re­la­tion­ship men­tioned in that in­tro­duct­ory sen­tence. For ex­ample, we have to study table 13.3 to un­der­stand how it sup­ports the sen­tence be­fore it:
    3. Most pre­dic­tions about in­creased gas­ol­ine con­sump­tion have proved wrong.

    Table 13.3. US Do­mestic De­mand for Gas­ol­ine, 1990–2020 (in bil­lions of gal­lons)

    1990

    2000

    2010

    2020

    An­nual con­sump­tion

    113.6

    131.9

    137.7

    127.7

    We need a more in­form­at­ive title, a sen­tence to ex­plain how the num­bers sup­port or il­lus­trate the claim, and visual cues that guide us to what we should see in the table:

    1. Gas­ol­ine con­sump­tion has not grown as pre­dicted. Through the 2000s and 2010s, gas­ol­ine con­sump­tion leveled off, and it even de­clined in 2020, likely as an ef­fect of quar­ant­in­ing dur­ing the COVID-19 pan­demic.

13.3.2  图形设计应尽可能简洁,与其内容相符

13.3.2  Keep All Graph­ics as Simple as Their Con­tent Al­lows

有些指南鼓励你把尽可能多的数据塞进图表中。但读者只想看到与你的观点相关的数据,不想被其他信息分散注意力。所有图表都应遵循以下原则:

Some guides en­cour­age you to cram as much data as you can into a graphic. But read­ers want to see only the data rel­ev­ant to your point, free of dis­trac­tions. For all graph­ics:

  1. 1. 只包含相关数据。如果数据仅用于记录,请相应地标记并将其放在附录中。
  2. 1. In­clude only rel­ev­ant data. To provide data only for the re­cord, la­bel it ac­cord­ingly and put it in an ap­pendix.
  3. 2. 保持视觉冲击力简洁。
    • ▪ 仅当两个或多个图形组合在一起时才需要用方框框住图形。
    • ▪ 不要给背景上色或添加阴影。
  4. 2. Keep the visual im­pact simple.
    • ▪  Box a graphic only if you group two or more fig­ures.
    • ▪  Do not color or shade the back­ground.

表格

FOR TABLES

  • ▪ 切勿同时使用水平和垂直的深色线条来分隔列和行。仅当表格结构复杂或您希望引导读者关注表格的行或列时,才可使用浅灰色线条。
  • ▪  Never use both ho­ri­zontal and ver­tical dark lines to di­vide columns and rows. Use light gray lines only if the table is com­plex or you want to fo­cus your reader’s at­ten­tion on its rows or its columns.
  • ▪ 对于有很多行的表格,每隔五行涂上浅色阴影。
  • ▪  For tables with many rows, lightly shade every fifth row.

图表和图形

FOR CHARTS AND GRAPHS

  • ▪ 仅当图形复杂或读者需要查看精确数字时才使用背景网格线。网格线应为浅灰色。
  • ▪  Use back­ground grid lines only if the graphic is com­plex or read­ers need to see pre­cise num­bers. Make them light gray.
  • ▪ 使用图案或阴影来区分对比。不要仅使用颜色或色调来区分对比,因为某些视力障碍人士可能无法分辨。尽可能使用图案或(更好的选择)标签。此外,如果您的图形之后将以黑白形式打印或复印,请避免使用颜色。
  • ▪  Use pat­terns or shad­ing to mark a con­trast. Do not mark con­trasts us­ing col­ors or shades of color alone be­cause people with cer­tain visual impair­ments may not be able to dis­tin­guish them. In­stead, rely on pat­terns or (bet­ter) la­bels wherever pos­sible. Also, avoid us­ing color if your graphic will be prin­ted or pho­to­copied in black-and-white later.
  • ▪ 切勿为了追求视觉效果而使用图标式图表(例如,用汽车图片代表汽车产量)或三维立体图。这两种做法都显得不够专业,而且会扭曲读者对价值的判断。
  • ▪  Never use iconic bars (for ex­ample, im­ages of cars to rep­res­ent auto­mobile pro­duc­tion) or three di­men­sions merely for ef­fect. Both look am­a­teur­ish and can dis­tort how read­ers judge val­ues.
  • ▪ 仅当读者熟悉三维图表且无法以其他方式显示数据时,才绘制三维数据图。
  • ▪  Plot data on three di­men­sions only when your read­ers are fa­mil­iar with such graphs and you can­not dis­play the data in any other way.
  • 3. 使用清晰的标签。
    • ▪ 为表格中的所有行和列以及图表中的所有坐标轴添加标签。
    • ▪ 使用刻度线和标签来指示图表纵轴上的间隔。
    • ▪ 如果可能,请在图像上直接标注线条、柱状图段等,而不是使用侧边或下方的图例。只有当标注会使图像过于复杂而难以阅读时,才应使用图例。
    • ▪ 当需要关注具体数字时,可将其添加到图表中的柱状图或分段图,或添加到图形中的线条上的点。
  • 3. Use clear la­bels.
    • ▪  La­bel all rows and columns in tables and both axes in charts and graphs.
    • ▪  Use tick marks and la­bels to in­dic­ate in­ter­vals on the ver­tical axis of a graph.
    • ▪  If pos­sible, la­bel lines, bar seg­ments, and the like on the im­age rather than in a le­gend set to the side or be­low. Use a le­gend only if la­bels would make the im­age too com­plex to read eas­ily.
    • ▪  When spe­cific num­bers mat­ter, add them to bars or seg­ments in charts or to dots on lines in graphs.

13.4  表格、柱状图和折线图的具体指南

13.4  Spe­cific Guidelines for Tables, Bar Charts, and Line Graphs

13.4.1  表格

13.4.1  Tables

包含大量数据的表格可能会显得杂乱无章,因此要对其进行整理,以便于读者阅读。

Tables with lots of data can seem dense, so or­gan­ize them to help read­ers.

  • ▪ 行和列的排列顺序应遵循突出读者希望看到内容的原则。不要自动选择字母顺序。
  • ▪  Or­der the rows and columns by a prin­ciple that em­phas­izes what you want read­ers to see. Do not auto­mat­ic­ally choose al­pha­betic or­der.
  • ▪ 将数字四舍五入到合适的值。如果小于 1,000 的差异无关紧要,那么 2,123,499 的精确度就无关紧要了。
  • ▪  Round num­bers to a rel­ev­ant value. If dif­fer­ences of less than 1,000 don’t mat­ter, then 2,123,499 is ir­rel­ev­antly pre­cise.
  • ▪ 总计位于列的底部或行的末尾,而不是顶部或左侧。
  • ▪  Sum totals at the bot­tom of a column or at the end of a row, not at the top or left.

比较表13.4和表13.5

Com­pare tables 13.4 and 13.5:

表13.4. 2000-2015年主要工业化国家的失业率

Table 13.4. Un­em­ploy­ment in ma­jor in­dus­trial na­tions, 2000–2015

2000

2000

2015

2015

改变

Change

澳大利亚

Aus­tralia

5.2

5.2

6.1

6.1

1.0

1.0

加拿大

Canada

8.0

8.0

6.9

6.9

(1.1)

(1.1)

法国

France

9.7

9.7

10.7

10.7

1.0

1.0

德国

Ger­many

7.1

7.1

5.2

5.2

(1.9)

(1.9)

意大利

Italy

8.4

8.4

11.9

11.9

3.5

3.5

日本

Ja­pan

5.0

5.0

3.9

3.9

(1.1)

(1.1)

瑞典

Sweden

8.6

8.6

7.7

7.7

(0.9)

(0.9)

英国

United King­dom

7.9

7.9

6.6

6.6

(1.3)

(1.3)

美国

United States

9.6

9.6

6.2

6.2

(3.4)

(3.4)

表 13.4看起来杂乱无章,各项内容的组织方式也不合理。相比之下,表 13.5则清晰得多,因为它标题信息丰富,视觉元素更少,而且各项内容的组织方式也便于我们更轻松地比较变化趋势。

Table 13.4 looks cluttered, and its items aren’t help­fully or­gan­ized. In con­trast, table 13.5 is clearer be­cause it has an in­form­at­ive title, less visual clut­ter, and items or­gan­ized to let us see the pat­tern of changes in com­par­at­ive terms more eas­ily.

表13.5. 2000-2015年工业化国家失业率变化

Table 13.5. Changes in un­em­ploy­ment rates of in­dus­trial na­tions, 2000–2015

2000

2000

2015

2015

改变

Change

美国

United States

9.6

9.6

6.2

6.2

(3.4)

(3.4)

德国

Ger­many

7.1

7.1

5.2

5.2

(1.9)

(1.9)

英国

United King­dom

7.9

7.9

6.6

6.6

(1.3)

(1.3)

加拿大

Canada

8.0

8.0

6.9

6.9

(1.1)

(1.1)

日本

Ja­pan

5.0

5.0

3.9

3.9

(1.1)

(1.1)

瑞典

Sweden

8.6

8.6

7.7

7.7

(0.9)

(0.9)

澳大利亚

Aus­tralia

5.2

5.2

6.2

6.2

1.0

1.0

法国

France

9.7

9.7

10.7

10.7

1.0

1.0

意大利

Italy

8.4

8.4

11.9

11.9

3.5

3.5

13.4.2  条形图

13.4.2  Bar Charts

条形图不仅通过具体的数字传递信息,也通过视觉冲击力来传达信息。但是,随意排列的条形图无法表达任何意义。如果可能,请将条形图分组并排列,以创建与信息相符的图像。例如,请结合图 13.4前面的说明文字来看一下。图中的条目是按字母顺序排列的,这种顺序不利于读者理解其含义:

Bar charts com­mu­nic­ate as much by visual im­pact as by spe­cific num­bers. But bars ar­ranged in no pat­tern im­ply no point. If pos­sible, group and ar­range bars to cre­ate an im­age that matches your mes­sage. For ex­ample, look at fig­ure 13.4 in the con­text of the ex­plan­at­ory sen­tence be­fore it. The items are lis­ted al­pha­bet­ic­ally, an or­der that doesn’t help read­ers see the point:

世界上大部分沙漠集中在北非和中东地区。

Most of the world’s deserts are con­cen­trated in North Africa and the Middle East.

这是一个未能有效传达数据要点的柱状图示例。横轴代表不同的沙漠,按字母顺序排列。纵轴代表每个沙漠的面积(单位:平方英里)。每个柱状图代表对应沙漠的面积。

图 13.4世界十大沙漠

Fig­ure 13.4. World’s ten largest deserts

相比之下,下一页的图 13.5用相应的图片支持了“世界上大部分沙漠集中在北非和中东”的说法。

In con­trast, fig­ure 13.5 on the next page sup­ports the claim “Most of the world’s deserts are con­cen­trated in North Africa and the Middle East” with a cor­res­pond­ing im­age.


在标准条形图中,每个条形代表整体的 100%。但有时读者需要查看整体各部分的具体数值。您可以通过两种方式提供这些数据:

In stand­ard bar charts, each bar rep­res­ents 100 per­cent of a whole. But some­times read­ers need to see spe­cific num­bers for parts of the whole. You can provide them in two ways:

  • ▪ 将条形图分成成比例的部分,形成“堆叠”条形图。
  • ▪  Di­vide the bars into pro­por­tional parts, cre­at­ing a “stacked” bar.
  • ▪ 将整体的每个部分分别放在一个方框中,然后将各个部分分组。
  • ▪  Give each part of the whole its own bar, then group the parts into clusters.

这是一个有效传达信息的柱状图示例。横轴代表不同的沙漠,纵轴代表每个沙漠的面积(单位:千平方英里)。这些沙漠被分为五个区域,每个区域内按面积从大到小排序。细竖线分隔各个区域。

图 13.5.世界大型沙漠分布

Fig­ure 13.5. World dis­tri­bu­tion of large deserts

只有当您希望读者比较不同柱状图的整体值而不是分割后的部分时,才应使用堆叠柱状图,因为读者仅凭肉眼很难比较各部分的比例。如果您确实要使用堆叠柱状图,请按以下步骤操作:

Use stacked bars only when you want read­ers to com­pare whole val­ues for dif­fer­ent bars rather than their di­vided seg­ments, be­cause read­ers can’t eas­ily com­pare the pro­por­tions of seg­ments by eye alone. If you do use stacked bars, do this:

  • ▪ 将各线段按逻辑顺序排列。如果可能,将最大的线段放在最底部,并用最深的颜色标出。
  • ▪  Ar­range seg­ments in a lo­gical or­der. If pos­sible, put the largest seg­ment at the bot­tom in the darkest shade.
  • ▪ 用特定数字标记各个线段,以便进行比较;用灰色线条连接相应的线段。
  • ▪  La­bel seg­ments with spe­cific num­bers to as­sist com­par­is­ons; con­nect cor­res­pond­ing seg­ments with gray lines.

比较对面页的图 13.6和图13.7 。

Com­pare fig­ures 13.6 and 13.7 on the fa­cing page.

如果你因为认为片段和整体同样重要而将条形图分组,请这样做:

If you group bars be­cause seg­ments are as im­port­ant as the wholes, do this:

  • ▪ 按逻辑顺序排列各组;如果可能,将大小相似的条形放在一起(所有组中的条形排列方式相同)。
  • ▪  Ar­range groups in a lo­gical or­der; if pos­sible, put bars of sim­ilar size next to one an­other (or­der bars in the same way through all the groups).
  • ▪ 在每个组上方或底部标签下方,用整体编号标记各组。
  • ▪  La­bel groups with the num­ber for the whole, either above each group or be­low the la­bels on the bot­tom.

大多数适合用条形图表示的数据也可以用饼图表示。饼图在杂志、小报和年度报告中很常见。饼图虽然色彩鲜艳,但比柱状图更难阅读。读者必须比较各个部分的比例,而这些部分的大小往往难以判断。不过,饼图也有其用武之地,尤其是在传达数据相对大小的定性印象时,例如,用来显示某个部分明显大于其他部分,或者显示数据整体大小不成比例地偏大。将饼图分成许多小部分。避免使用饼图来详细传达定量数据。为此,请使用柱状图。

Most data that fit a bar chart can also be shown in a pie chart. Pie charts are pop­u­lar in magazines, tabloids, and an­nual re­ports. While splashy, they are harder to read than bar charts. Read­ers must com­pare pro­por­tions of seg­ments whose sizes are of­ten hard to judge. But pie charts have their place, es­pe­cially to com­mu­nic­ate qual­it­at­ive im­pres­sions about the com­par­at­ive size of data, either to show that one seg­ment is dis­pro­por­tion­ately lar­ger than the rest or that the data are di­vided into many small seg­ments. Avoid us­ing pie charts to con­vey quant­it­at­ive data in any de­tail. For that, use bar charts.

这是一个过于复杂的垂直堆叠条形图示例。横轴代表年份,范围从 1980 年到 1999 年,以 5 年为增量。(最后一个增量,即 1995 年到 1999 年,为 4 年。)纵轴代表核能发电量,单位为十亿千瓦时,范围从 0 到 3000,以 500 为增量。每个条形由 4 到 6 个填充图案不同的部分组成,分别代表世界不同的地区。因此,很难比较不同条形中各个地区的数据。

图 13.6. 1980-1999 年世界核能发电量

Fig­ure 13.6. World gen­er­a­tion of nuc­lear en­ergy, 1980–1999

这是一个简化的、结构清晰的垂直堆叠条形图示例。横轴代表年份,范围从 1980 年到 1999 年,以 5 年为增量。(1995 年到 1999 年的最后一个增量为 4 年。)纵轴代表核能发电量,单位为十亿千瓦时,范围从 0 到 2500,以 500 为增量。每个条形由 4 个不同深浅的灰色段组成,每个灰色段包含一个数值。相邻条形之间用线条连接,便于比较各个段。

图 13.7. 1980–1999 年最大的核能发电厂

Fig­ure 13.7. Largest gen­er­at­ors of nuc­lear en­ergy, 1980–1999

13.4.3  折线图

13.4.3  Line Graphs

由于折线图强调的是趋势,读者必须看到清晰的图像才能正确解读。请执行以下操作:

Be­cause a line graph em­phas­izes trends, read­ers must see a clear im­age to in­ter­pret it cor­rectly. Do the fol­low­ing:

  • ▪ 选择能够使曲线朝支持你观点的方向(上升或下降)变化的变量。如果好消息是高中辍学率下降,你可以用一条上升的曲线来更有效地表示数据,表明留校率上升。如果你想强调坏消息,则需要找到一种方法将数据表示为一条下降的曲线。
  • ▪  Choose the vari­able that makes the line go in the dir­ec­tion, up or down, that sup­ports your point. If the good news is a re­duc­tion (down) in high school dro­pouts, you can more ef­fect­ively rep­res­ent the same data as a rising line in­dic­at­ing in­crease in re­ten­tion (up). If you want to em­phas­ize bad news, find a way to rep­res­ent your data as a fall­ing line.
  • ▪ 只有当你无法用其他方式表达你的观点时,才可以在一张图上绘制超过六条线。
  • ▪  Plot more than six lines on one graph only if you can­not make your point in any other way.
  • ▪ 如果数据点少于十个左右,请用圆点表示。如果只有少数数据点相关,请插入数字以显示其确切值。
  • ▪  If you have fewer than ten or so data points, in­dic­ate them with dots. If only a few are rel­ev­ant, in­sert num­bers to show their ex­act value.
  • ▪ 不要依赖不同的灰色阴影来区分线条,如图13.8所示。
  • ▪  Do not de­pend on dif­fer­ent shades of gray to dis­tin­guish lines, as in fig­ure 13.8.

比较对面页的图 13.8图 13.9 。

Com­pare fig­ure 13.8 and fig­ure 13.9 on the fa­cing page.

图 13.8难以阅读,因为灰色阴影无法很好地区分线条与背景,而且我们的目光需要来回移动才能将线条与图例联系起来。图 13.9则使这些联系更加清晰。

Fig­ure 13.8 is harder to read be­cause the shades of gray do not dis­tin­guish the lines well against the back­ground and be­cause our eyes have to flick back and forth to con­nect the lines to the le­gend. Fig­ure 13.9 makes those con­nec­tions clearer.

用不同的方式呈现相同的数据可能会令人困惑,因此请尝试不同的方案。制作不同的图表,然后请一位不熟悉数据的人来评判这些图表的冲击力和清晰度。务必在图表前附上一句话,阐明您希望它们支持的论点。

These dif­fer­ent ways of show­ing the same data can be con­fus­ing, so test dif­fer­ent op­tions. Con­struct al­tern­at­ive graph­ics, then ask someone un­fa­mil­iar with the data to judge those al­tern­at­ives for im­pact and clar­ity. Be sure to in­tro­duce the fig­ures with a sen­tence that states the claim you want them to sup­port.

13.5  以合乎伦理的方式表示数据

13.5  Rep­res­ent­ing Data Eth­ic­ally

你的图表不仅要清晰准确,还要真实可信。不要为了论证观点而歪曲数据。例如,第230页上的两个柱状图虽然数据相同,却传达了不同的信息。

Your graphic must be not only clear and ac­cur­ate, but hon­est. Do not dis­tort the im­age of the data to make your point. On page 230, the two bar charts dis­play identical data, yet im­ply dif­fer­ent mes­sages.

这是一个难以解读的折线图示例。横轴代表年份,从1870年到1990年,以30年为增量。纵轴代表外来居民人数,从0到1400万,以200万为增量。图中有6条不同深浅的灰色线条,右侧附有图例。

图 13.8. 1870–1990 年美国外国出生居民人数

Fig­ure 13.8. For­eign-born res­id­ents in the United States, 1870–1990

这是一个制作精良的折线图示例。横轴代表年份,从 1870 年到 1990 年,以 30 年为增量。纵轴代表外来居民人数(单位:百万),从 0 到 14,以 2 为增量。图中共有 6 条线,每条线在数据点处的形状各不相同,线旁还标注了地区名称。水平线从左侧纵轴延伸至各个增量点。

图 13.9. 1870–1990 年美国外国出生居民人数

Fig­ure 13.9. For­eign-born res­id­ents in the United States, 1870–1990

以下两个例子说明了如何使用不同刻度的条形图来以不同的方式表示相同的信息。

图 13.10.首府城市污染指数,2010–2022 年

Fig­ure 13.10. Cap­itol City pol­lu­tion in­dex, 2010–2022

图 13.10 左侧的 0-100 刻度线形成了一个较为平缓的斜率,这使得污染下降的幅度看起来很小。然而,右侧的垂直刻度线并非从 0 开始,而是从 80 开始。当刻度线被如此截断时,会形成一个更陡峭的斜率,从而放大较小的差异。

The 0–100 scale on the left in fig­ure 13.10 cre­ates a fairly flat slope, which makes the drop in pol­lu­tion seem small. The ver­tical scale on the right, how­ever, be­gins not at 0 but at 80. When a scale is so trun­cated, it cre­ates a sharper slope that ex­ag­ger­ates small con­trasts.

图表也可能通过暗示虚假相关性而误导人。例如,有人可能会声称失业率随着工会会员人数的下降而下降,并以图 13.11作为证据。的确,在该图中,工会会员人数和失业率的变动似乎非常接近,以至于读者可能会推断出二者之间存在因果关系:

Graphs can also mis­lead by im­ply­ing false cor­rel­a­tions. Someone might claim that un­em­ploy­ment goes down as union mem­ber­ship goes down and of­fer fig­ure 13.11 as evid­ence. And in­deed, in that graph, union mem­ber­ship and the un­em­ploy­ment rate do seem to move to­gether so closely that a reader might in­fer one causes the other:

这是一个折线图示例,左右两个轴分别代表不同的数据。横轴代表年份,范围从 2013 年到 2019 年。左侧纵轴代表工会会员比例(百分比),范围从 13% 到 17%。右侧纵轴代表失业率(百分比),范围从 4% 到 8%。图中有两条线,一条代表工会会员比例,另一条代表失业率。工会会员比例和失业率均呈逐年下降趋势。

图 13.11. 2013-2019 年工会会员人数与失业率

Fig­ure 13.11. Union mem­ber­ship and un­em­ploy­ment rate, 2013–2019

但是左轴(工会会员人数)的刻度与右轴(失业率)的刻度不同,这使得……两种趋势可能存在因果关系。它们或许确实存在因果关系,但这种扭曲的表象并不能证明这一点。

But the scale for the left axis (union mem­ber­ship) dif­fers from the scale for the right axis (the un­em­ploy­ment rate), mak­ing it seem that the two trends could be caus­ally re­lated. They may be, but that dis­tor­ted im­age doesn’t prove it.

图表也可能误导读者,让他们错误判断数值。图 13.12中的两张图表代表完全相同的数据,但似乎传达了不同的信息:

Graphs can also mis­lead when they en­cour­age read­ers to mis­judge val­ues. The two charts in fig­ure 13.12 rep­res­ent ex­actly the same data but seem to com­mu­nic­ate dif­fer­ent mes­sages:

以下是堆叠面积图中数据排列方式的两个示例。

图 13.12. 1980-2020 年州立大学本科生中周边县的占比(占总数的百分比)

Fig­ure 13.12. Rep­res­ent­a­tion of col­lar counties in state uni­ver­sity un­der­gradu­ates (per­cent of total), 1980–2020

图 13.12中的两个图表均为堆积面积图。这类图表并非通过线条的角度,而是通过线条之间的面积来表示数值的变化。在两个图表中,南、东、西三个方向的条带宽度基本保持一致,表明它们所代表的数值变化不大。然而,北方向的条带则急剧变宽,表明其所代表的数值急剧增加。在左侧的图表中,读者很容易误判顶部三个条带的变化,因为它们位于不断上升的北方向条带之上,使得这些条带看起来也随之上升。而在右侧的图表中,这三个条带并没有上升,因为它们位于底部。此时,只有北方向的条带在上升。

The charts in fig­ure 13.12 are both stacked area charts. Charts such as these rep­res­ent changes in val­ues not by the angles of the lines, but by the areas between them. In both charts, the bands for south, east, and west are roughly the same width through­out, in­dic­at­ing little change in the val­ues they rep­res­ent. The band for the north, how­ever, widens sharply, rep­res­ent­ing a sharp in­crease in the num­bers it rep­res­ents. In the chart on the left, read­ers could eas­ily mis­judge the top three bands, be­cause they are on top of the rising north band, mak­ing those bands seem to rise as well. In the chart on the right, on the other hand, those three bands do not rise be­cause they are on the bot­tom. Now only the band for the north rises.

以下是避免视觉误导的四条准则:

Here are four guidelines for avoid­ing visual mis­rep­res­ent­a­tion:

  • ▪ 请勿通过调整标尺来放大或缩小对比度。
  • ▪  Do not ma­nip­u­late a scale to mag­nify or re­duce a con­trast.
  • ▪ 不要使用图像会扭曲数值的图形。
  • ▪  Do not use a fig­ure whose im­age dis­torts val­ues.
  • ▪ 不要使表格或图表过于复杂或过于简单而具有误导性。
  • ▪  Do not make a table or fig­ure un­ne­ces­sar­ily com­plex or mis­lead­ingly simple.
  • ▪ 如果表格或图表支持某个观点,请说明。
  • ▪  If the table or fig­ure sup­ports a point, state it.

表 13.6.常见图形及其用途

Table 13.6. Com­mon graphic forms and their uses

数据

Data

修辞手法

Rhet­or­ical Uses

表格前半部分总结了常见的图形形式及其用途,包含十一个条目中的前六个。第一个条目由一个图标引出,该图标显示一个条形图,其中包含三个不同的垂直条,所有条的阴影颜色均相同。这种图表用于比较一系列称为“案例”的项目中某个变量的值;例如,比较六家公司服务人员的平均工资。它可以在各个案例之间形成强烈的视觉对比,从而突出每个案例。对于具体值,可以在条形图中添加数字。该图表可以显示排名或趋势。垂直条(称为列)最为常见,但如果案例数量众多或标签复杂,也可以使用水平条。参见 13.4.2 节。第二个条目由一个图标引出,该图标显示一个分组或拆分条形图,其中包含两组垂直条,每组两条,每组包含两个不同阴影颜色的条。这种图表用于比较一系列案例中某个变量的值,该变量被分为两个子集;例如,比较两家公司男性和女性服务人员的平均工资。它可以对比各个案例内部和案例之间的子集;不适用于比较案例的总值。对于特定值,请在柱状图中添加数字。分组柱状图难以清晰显示排名或趋势;仅当趋势不重要时才适用于时间序列。参见 13.4.2 节。第三个条目由一个图标引入,该图标显示一个包含三个柱状图的堆叠柱状图。每个垂直柱状图被分为两个不同的阴影,一个在另一个之上。用于比较一个变量的值,该变量被分为两个或多个子集,并应用于一系列案例;例如,按地区划分的六个行业的骚扰投诉。最适合比较所有案例以及案例内各个子集的值;难以比较案例间的子集,请使用分组柱状图。对于特定值,请在柱状图和分段中添加数字。适用于时间序列。仅能显示总值的排名或趋势。参见 13.4.2 节。第四个条目由一个图标引入,该图标显示一个直方图,其中包含垂直柱状图,所有柱状图的阴影均匀,彼此相邻,没有空白。用于比较两个变量的值,其中一个变量被分割成多个范围,这些范围的功能类似于柱状图中的案例;例如,可以将服务业员工的薪资分为 0 至 5000 美元、5001 至 10000 美元、10001 至 15000 美元和 15001 至 20000 美元四个区间。这种方法最适合比较连续数据集中的不同区间。它既能显示趋势,又能突出各个区间,例如,5000 至 10000 美元区间的突然飙升代表兼职员工。要显示具体数值,请在柱状图中添加数字。第五个条目以一个显示图像图表的图标引入。这里,美国地图用两种不同的颜色区分了不同的州。这种方法用于显示地图、图表或其他图像中案例的两个或多个变量的值;例如,用红色或蓝色标记的州地图可以显示投票模式。显示数据相对于预设类别的分布情况;弱化具体数值。当图像熟悉时效果最佳,例如地图或流程图。第六个条目由一个饼图图标引入,该饼图显示一个被分割成三个不同颜色区域的圆形区域。用于显示一系列案例中单个变量的比例;例如,美国各内阁部门的预算份额。最适合比较单个部分与整体。仅适用于部分数量较少或部分大小差异很大的情况;否则,部分之间的比较将变得困难。对于具体数值,请在各部分中添加数字。在大众领域很常见,但专业人士不推荐使用。参见 13.4.2 节。

表格的后半部分总结了常见的图形类型及其用途。表格的后半部分包含十一个条目中的最后五个。第七个条目由一个图标引出,该图标显示一个折线图,其中包含以虚线绘制的曲线。用于比较一个或多个连续变量的情况;例如,比较两种流体的温度和粘度。最适合显示趋势;弱化具体数值。适用于时间序列。要显示具体数值,请为数据点添加数字。要显示趋势的显著性,请分割网格(例如,低于或高于平均水平的表现)。参见 13.4.3 节。第八个条目由一个图标引出,该图标显示一个面积图。此处,一条线绘制了两个变量之间的关系。线下方的区域被着色。用于比较一个或多个连续变量的情况;例如,比较一个学区一段时间内的考试成绩。显示趋势;弱化具体数值。可用于时间序列。要显示具体数值,请为数据点添加数字。线条下方的区域不提供任何信息,但会导致一些读者误判数值。多条线条/区域图容易造成混淆。第九个条目由一个图标引入,该图标显示了一个由两条线定义的堆积面积图。底部第一条线下方的区域用一种颜色着色,两条线之间的区域用另一种颜色着色。用于比较两个或多个案例中的两个连续变量;例如,几种产品的利润随时间的变化。它显示了所有案例总和的趋势,以及每个案例对总和的贡献。如第 13.5 节所述,它可能会误导读者对任何单个案例的值或趋势的判断。第十个条目由一个图标引入,该图标显示了两个案例的数据散点图。第一个案例的数据点用实心圆圈表示。第二个案例的数据点用实心方块表示。数据点分散在整个图表中。用于比较一个或多个案例中多个数据点的两个变量;例如,两个城市的房屋销售额和距市中心的距离。这种图表最适合展示数据分布,尤其是在没有明显趋势或关注异常值时。如果只绘制少量数据点,则可以重点关注单个数值。第十一个条目以一个气泡图图标开头,该图标包含几个大小不一、颜色深浅不同的圆圈。它用于比较一个或多个案例中三个变量在多个数据点上的情况;例如,x 轴表示房屋销售量,y 轴表示距市中心的距离,y 轴表示两个城市的房价(以圆圈表示)。这种图表强调第三个变量(以圆圈​​表示)与前两个变量之间的关系;当需要判断第三个变量是否是其他变量的乘积时,它最为有用。读者很容易误判气泡图所显示的相对值;添加数字可以缓解这个问题。

▶ 小贴士:寻找机会加入视觉证据

▶ Quick Tip: Look for Op­por­tun­it­ies to In­clude Visual Evid­ence

如今,各领域的论文和演示文稿越来越多地采用多模态形式——即包含视觉信息和文字信息。多模态论证在自然科学和许多社会科学领域早已司空见惯,并且正逐渐被传统上避免使用多模态的领域所接受。因此,初级研究人员比以往任何时候都更需要学习如何以及何时以图形形式(而非仅以文字形式)呈现数据或信息。即使您的论文或演示文稿不需要视觉证据,但添加视觉证据也可能有所助益,因为多种证据呈现方式协同作用,能提高听众理解并接受您论点的可能性。所以,请留意以视觉方式呈现数据的机会:

In­creas­ingly, pa­pers and present­a­tions in all fields are mul­timodal—that is, they in­clude visual as well as verbal in­form­a­tion. Mul­timodal ar­gu­ments have long been the norm in the nat­ural sci­ences and many so­cial sci­ences and are be­com­ing ac­cep­ted in fields that have tra­di­tion­ally avoided them. More than ever then, be­gin­ning re­search­ers must learn how and when to present data or in­form­a­tion in graphic form, rather than in words alone. Even if your pa­per or present­a­tion doesn’t need visual evid­ence, it might be­ne­fit from hav­ing it be­cause mul­tiple modes of rep­res­ent­ing evid­ence, work­ing to­gether, make it more likely that your audi­ence will un­der­stand and be con­vinced by your ar­gu­ments. So be on the lookout for op­por­tun­it­ies to rep­res­ent that data visu­ally:

  • ▪  注意你所在领域的资料是如何使用视觉证据的。不仅要注意呈现的数据或信息的类型,还要注意这些呈现形式。
  • ▪  No­tice how sources in your field use visual evid­ence. Pay at­ten­tion not just to the kinds of data or in­form­a­tion that get rep­res­en­ted but to the forms those rep­res­ent­a­tions take.
  • ▪  向经验丰富的研究人员请教他们在自己的研究中如何使用视觉证据。当你了解专家们的选择时,你也能做出更好的选择。
  • ▪  Ask ex­per­i­enced re­search­ers how they use visual evid­ence in their own work. When you un­der­stand the choices ex­perts make, you will make bet­ter choices your­self.
  • ▪  决定在论文中至少使用一张图表。仅此一项决定就能让你专注于如何在论证中使用视觉证据。
  • ▪  De­cide to use at least one graphic in your pa­per. That de­cision alone will fo­cus your at­ten­tion on ways you can use visual evid­ence in your ar­gu­ment.
  • ▪  向老师询问是否有需要使用视觉证据的作业。大多数老师都乐于看到学生在自己的作品中借鉴和借鉴他们从资料中看到并欣赏的做法。即使作业没有明确要求使用图表,也不要不好意思向老师询问是否可以这样做。
  • ▪  Ask your teach­ers for as­sign­ments that in­vite the use of visual evid­ence. Most teach­ers ap­pre­ci­ate it when stu­dents as­pire to make moves in their own work that they see and ad­mire in their sources. Even if your as­sign­ment doesn’t ex­pli­citly call for you to use graph­ics, don’t be shy about ask­ing your teach­ers for the op­tion to do so.

14 引言和结论

14  In­tro­duc­tions and Con­clu­sions

好的引言能激发读者的兴趣,帮助他们更好地理解你的作品。好的结论则能清晰地阐明你的观点,并加深读者对作品意义的理解。本章将教你如何撰写引言和结论。你花在引言和结论上的时间或许是你写作中最宝贵的。

A good in­tro­duc­tion en­cour­ages read­ers to read your work with in­terest and pre­pares them to un­der­stand it bet­ter. A good con­clu­sion leaves them with a clear state­ment of your point and re­newed ap­pre­ci­ation of its sig­ni­fic­ance. In this chapter, we show you how to write both. The time you spend on your in­tro­duc­tion and con­clu­sion may be your most im­port­ant.

一旦你觉得草稿已经可以接受,就可以着手撰写最终的引言和结论了。有些作者认为这意味着遵循老生常谈的建议:用一些简洁明了或引人入胜的文字吸引读者的注意力。这条建议并非毫无用处,但你的读者想要的远不止这些。在第一部分中,我们向你展示了如何围绕一个研究问题展开项目。在这里,我们将向你展示如何利用这个问题来吸引读者。一个吸引人的开头或许能激发读者的注意力,但真正能留住他们的,是他们认为需要解决的问题,以及你已经找到解决方案的承诺。正如我们所说,你可以与那些说“我不同意”的读者沟通。但对于那些耸耸肩说“我不在乎”的人,你却无能为力。

Once you think you have a draft that works, you’re ready to write your fi­nal in­tro­duc­tion and con­clu­sion. Some writers think that means fol­low­ing the stand­ard ad­vice: Grab their at­ten­tion with some­thing snappy or cute. That ad­vice is not use­less, but your audi­ence wants more than cute and snappy. In part I, we showed you how to de­velop a pro­ject around a re­search prob­lem. Here, we show you how to use that prob­lem to en­gage your audi­ence. A catchy open­ing might spark read­ers’ at­ten­tion, but what keeps their at­ten­tion is a prob­lem they think needs a solu­tion and a prom­ise that you have found it. As we have said, you can al­ways work with read­ers who say, I don’t agree. You can’t do much with those who shrug and say, I don’t care.

14.1  引言的常见结构

14.1  The Com­mon Struc­ture of In­tro­duc­tions

正如我们所指出的,不同的研究群体开展工作的方式各不相同。虽然它们表面上的介绍可能有所不同,但其内在结构却是相同的。请看以下三个分别来自文化批评、计算机设计和法律史领域的简要示例:

As we have noted, dif­fer­ent re­search com­munit­ies do things in dif­fer­ent ways. While their in­tro­duc­tions may look dif­fer­ent on the sur­face, their un­der­ly­ing struc­tures are the same. Con­sider these three con­densed ex­amples from the fields of cul­tural cri­ti­cism, com­puter design, and legal his­tory:

(1)为什么机器不能更像人?在《星际迷航:下一代》的几乎每一集中,机器人Data都在思考是什么造就了人。在最初的《星际迷航》中,半瓦肯人斯波克先生也提出了类似的问题,他作为人的地位也受到了质疑。他那如同机器般的逻辑和情感的缺失,使他显得冷漠无情。事实上,Data和Spock只是众多探索人性本质的“准人类”中的两个例子。从弗兰肯斯坦的怪物到终结者,各种各样的生物都曾被提出过类似的问题。但真正的问题是,为什么这些努力成为“人”的角色几乎总是白人男性?作为文化诠释者,他们是否在潜移默化地强化了关于“正常”的有害刻板印象?理想人格的构建似乎实际上是由西方标准决定的,而这些标准将世界上绝大多数人排除在外。

(2) 作为持续质量改进 (CQI) 项目的一部分,Motodyne Computers 计划重新设计其 Unidyne™在线帮助系统的用户界面。该界面规范要求使用能够让用户无需文字说明即可识别其功能的自解释性图标。Motodyne 已使用其现有图标集三年,但没有数据表明哪些图标是自解释性的。由于缺乏此类数据,我们无法确定需要重新设计哪些图标。本报告提供了 11 个图标的数据,结果表明其中 5 个图标并非自解释性的。

(3)在当今社会,1780年在美军后方被俘的英国便衣间谍约翰·安德烈少校会被处以绞刑吗?尽管他被视为一位高尚的爱国者,但他还是受到了军事法律规定的惩罚。随着时间的推移,我们的传统发生了变化,但间谍罪的惩罚却未变。它是唯一一项必须判处死刑的罪行。然而,最近最高法院驳回了民事案件中强制执行死刑的判例,这使得死刑在军事案件中的适用变得模糊不清。如果最高法院的判决适用于军事领域,国会是否需要修订《统一军事司法法典》?本文的结论是肯定的。

(1) Why can’t a ma­chine be more like a man? In al­most every epis­ode of Star Trek: The Next Gen­er­a­tion, the an­droid Data won­ders what makes a per­son a per­son. In the ori­ginal Star Trek, sim­ilar ques­tions were raised by the half-Vul­can Mr. Spock, whose status as a per­son was un­der­mined by his ma­chine­like lo­gic and lack of emo­tion. In fact, Data and Spock are only two ex­amples of “quasi-per­sons” who have ex­plored the nature of hu­man­ity. The same ques­tion has been raised by and about creatures ran­ging from Franken­stein’s mon­ster to the Ter­min­ator. But the real ques­tion is why these char­ac­ters who struggle to be per­sons are al­most al­ways white and male. As cul­tural in­ter­pret­ers, do they ta­citly re­in­force de­struct­ive ste­reo­types of what it means to be “nor­mal”? The model per­son seems in fact to be defined by West­ern cri­teria that ex­clude most of the people in the world.

(2) As part of its pro­gram of Con­tinu­ous Qual­ity Im­prove­ment (CQI), Mo­to­dyne Com­puters plans to re­design the user in­ter­face for its Uni­dyneTM on­line help sys­tem. The spe­cific­a­tions for its in­ter­face call for self-ex­plan­at­ory icons that let users identify their func­tion without verbal la­bels. Mo­to­dyne has three years’ ex­per­i­ence with its cur­rent icon set, but it has no data show­ing which icons are self-ex­plan­at­ory. Lack­ing such data, we can­not de­term­ine which icons to re­design. This re­port provides data for el­even icons, show­ing that five of them are not self-ex­plan­at­ory.

(3) In today’s so­ci­ety, would Ma­jor John An­dré, a Brit­ish spy in ci­vil­ian clothes cap­tured be­hind Amer­ican lines in 1780, be hanged? Though con­sidered a noble pat­riot, he suffered the pun­ish­ment man­dated by mil­it­ary law. Over time our tra­di­tions have changed, but the pun­ish­ment for spy­ing has not. It is the only of­fense that man­dates death. Re­cently, how­ever, the Su­preme Court has re­jec­ted man­dat­ory death sen­tences in ci­vil­ian cases, cre­at­ing an am­bi­gu­ity in their ap­plic­a­tion to mil­it­ary cases. If Su­preme Court de­cisions ap­ply to the mil­it­ary, will Con­gress have to re­vise the Uni­form Code of Mil­it­ary Justice? This art­icle con­cludes that it will.

这三篇导论所提出的主题和问题与其目标读者群体一样各不相同,但它们背后却隐藏着一个共同的模式,读者无论在哪个领域,都会在所有导论中寻找这种模式。这种共同的结构包含三个要素:

The top­ics and prob­lems posed in those three in­tro­duc­tions dif­fer as much as their in­ten­ded audi­ences, but be­hind them is a shared pat­tern that read­ers look for in all in­tro­duc­tions, re­gard­less of field. That com­mon struc­ture con­sists of three ele­ments:

  • ▪ 上下文陈述
  • ▪  state­ment of the con­text
  • 问题陈述
  • ▪  state­ment of the prob­lem
  • ▪ 回应声明
  • ▪  state­ment of a re­sponse

并非每篇介绍都包含这三个要素,但大多数都包含。

Not every in­tro­duc­tion has all three ele­ments, but most do.

以下是每篇引言中“背景+问题+回应”的模式:

Here is that pat­tern of con­text + prob­lem + re­sponse in each of those in­tro­duc­tions:

(1)背景:为什么机器不能更像人呢?……从弗兰肯斯坦的怪物到终结者,各种各样的生物都曾被提出过同样的问题。

问题:但真正的问题是……它们是否在潜移默化中强化了关于“正常”含义的有害刻板印象?

回应:事实上,理想人物的定义似乎是由西方标准决定的,而这排除了世界上大多数人。

(1) CON­TEXT: Why can’t a ma­chine be more like a man? . . . The same ques­tion has been raised by and about creatures ran­ging from Franken­stein’s mon­ster to the Ter­min­ator.

PROB­LEM: But the real ques­tion is . . . do they ta­citly re­in­force de­struct­ive ste­reo­types of what it means to be “nor­mal”?

RE­SPONSE: The model per­son seems in fact to be defined by West­ern cri­teria that ex­clude most of the people in the world.

(2)背景:作为持续质量改进(CQI)计划的一部分,Motodyne Computers公司计划重新设计用户界面……Motodyne公司使用其现有图标集已有三年经验……

问题:  ……但它没有数据表明哪些图标是无需解释的。由于缺乏此类数据,我们无法确定需要重新设计哪些图标。

回复:本报告提供了 11 个图标的数据,表明其中 5 个图标的含义并不明确。

(2) CON­TEXT: As part of its pro­gram of Con­tinu­ous Qual­ity Im­prove­ment (CQI), Mo­to­dyne Com­puters plans to re­design the user in­ter­face. . . . Mo­to­dyne has three years’ ex­per­i­ence with its cur­rent icon set . . .

PROB­LEM: . . . but it has no data show­ing which icons are self-ex­plan­at­ory. Lack­ing such data, we can­not de­term­ine which icons to re­design.

RE­SPONSE: This re­port provides data for el­even icons, show­ing that five of them are not self-ex­plan­at­ory.

(3)背景:在当今社会,约翰·安德烈少校会因为间谍罪被绞死吗?……这是唯一一种会被判处死刑的罪行。

问题:然而,最高法院最近驳回了民事案件中强制执行死刑的判例,这使得死刑在军事案件中的适用变得模糊不清……国会是否需要修订《统一军事司法法典》?

回应:本文的结论是,它将会发生。

(3) CON­TEXT: In today’s so­ci­ety, would Ma­jor John An­dré . . . be hanged [for spy­ing]? . . . It is the only of­fense that man­dates death.

PROB­LEM: Re­cently, how­ever, the Su­preme Court has re­jec­ted man­dat­ory death sen­tences in ci­vil­ian cases, cre­at­ing an am­bi­gu­ity in their ap­plic­a­tion to mil­it­ary cases. . . . [W]ill Con­gress have to re­vise the Uni­form Code of Mil­it­ary Justice?

RE­SPONSE: This art­icle con­cludes that it will.

这些要素各自发挥着作用,既能激发读者阅读论文的兴趣,又能帮助他们理解论文的内容。

Each of those ele­ments plays its own role in mo­tiv­at­ing read­ers to read your pa­per and in help­ing them to un­der­stand it.

14.2  第一步:陈述背景

14.2  Step 1: Stat­ing a Con­text

想象一下童话故事的开头:

Con­sider the open­ing of a fairy tale:

在一个阳光明媚的早晨,小红帽蹦蹦跳跳地穿过森林,前往奶奶家。[想象一下,蝴蝶在她头顶翩翩起舞,伴随着笛声和小提琴声]

One sunny morn­ing Little Red Rid­ing Hood was skip­ping through the forest on her way to Grand­mother’s house.stable con­text [ima­gine but­ter­flies dan­cing around her head to flutes and vi­ol­ins]

就像大多数童话故事的开头一样,这个故事也建立了一个稳定甚至幸福的背景,只是为了让这种氛围被一个问题打破:

Like the open­ing to most fairy tales, this one es­tab­lishes a stable, even happy con­text, just so that it can be dis­rup­ted with a prob­lem:

……突然,饿狼从树后跳了出来,打破了平静(想象一下长号和低音号齐鸣),吓坏了她(如果孩子们沉浸在故事里,也会被吓到)。成本

. . . when sud­denly Hungry Wolf jumped out from be­hind a treedis­rupt­ing con­di­tion [ima­gine trom­bones and tu­bas] fright­en­ing her [and, if they’ve lost them­selves in the story, little chil­dren as well].cost

故事的其余部分详细阐述了这个问题,然后解决了这个问题。

The rest of the story elab­or­ates that prob­lem and then re­solves it.

大多数引言都遵循相同的策略。为了建立共同基础——即读者和作者对作者将要探讨的更广泛议题的共同理解——它们会先陈述一个稳定的背景,一些看似毫无争议的、已被人们熟知或接受的事物。然后,作者会提出一个问题来打破这种稳定,实际上是在说:读者,你或许认为自己了解某些事情, 你的知识并不完善或完整。

Most in­tro­duc­tions fol­low the same strategy. To es­tab­lish com­mon ground—a shared un­der­stand­ing between audi­ence and writer about the lar­ger is­sue the writer will ad­dress—they state a stable con­text, some ap­par­ently un­prob­lem­atic ac­count of what is already known or ac­cep­ted. The writer then dis­rupts it with a prob­lem, say­ing in ef­fect: Reader, you may think you know some­thing, but your know­ledge is im­per­fect or in­com­plete.

(3)稳定 背景:在当今社会,英国间谍约翰·安德烈少校会被处以绞刑吗?……间谍活动是唯一会被判处死刑的罪行。

棘手 问题:然而,最近最高法院驳回了强制性死刑判决……

(3) STABLE CON­TEXT: In today’s so­ci­ety, would Ma­jor John An­dré, a Brit­ish spy . . . be hanged? . . . [Spy­ing] is the only of­fense that man­dates death.

DIS­RUPT­ING PROB­LEM: Re­cently, how­ever, the Su­preme Court has re­jec­ted man­dat­ory death sen­tences. . . .

当作者确信读者已经意识到他们提出的问题是一个问题时,他们有时会省略背景介绍,这通常是因为该问题在特定的研究领域内已被广泛认可。而这篇引言则直接以一个问题开篇:

Writers some­times skip the con­text when they are sure their read­ers already re­cog­nize their prob­lem as a prob­lem, usu­ally be­cause it is well es­tab­lished in a par­tic­u­lar re­search com­munity. This in­tro­duc­tion opens dir­ectly with a prob­lem:

最新的科学模型预测,海平面上升将在本世纪末之前对世界沿海城市构成威胁。

The most re­cent sci­entific mod­els pre­dict that rising sea levels will threaten the world’s coastal cit­ies well be­fore the end of this cen­tury.

但通常情况下,读者需要一些背景信息才能理解问题的意义,因此作者会用看似无关紧要的细节来引出问题。在既定认知或先前研究的背景下,他们尤其希望能够颠覆这种认知或研究:

But usu­ally, read­ers need some con­text to un­der­stand a prob­lem’s sig­ni­fic­ance, so writers in­tro­duce it with the seem­ingly un­prob­lem­atic con­text of an ac­cep­ted un­der­stand­ing or prior re­search, spe­cific­ally so they can dis­rupt it:

由于他汀类药物能有效降低胆固醇且副作用似乎很小,长期以来一直被用作预防心血管疾病和中风的常规药物。然而,2010年代进行的几项研究表明,他汀类药物可能会增加认知障碍和痴呆的风险,导致医学界对其广泛使用产生一些疑虑。

Be­cause of their ef­fect­ive­ness in lower­ing cho­les­terol and seem­ingly minor side ef­fects, stat­ins have long been pre­scribed as a routine pre­vent­at­ive treat­ment for car­di­ovas­cu­lar dis­ease and strokes.stable con­text How­ever, sev­eral stud­ies con­duc­ted in the 2010s sug­ges­ted that stat­ins may in­crease risk of cog­nit­ive impair­ment and de­men­tia,destabil­iz­ing con­di­tion lead­ing to some un­cer­tainty in the med­ical com­munity about their wide­spread use.con­sequence

现在读者对这个问题感兴趣的理由不止一个,而是两个:不仅是问题本身,还有他们对整个问题的理解还不够全面。

Read­ers now have not one reason to be in­ter­ested in the prob­lem, but two: not just the prob­lem it­self, but also their in­com­plete un­der­stand­ing of the whole mat­ter.

你的描述可能表明存在误会:

Your con­text can de­scribe a mis­un­der­stand­ing:

人们普遍认为十字军东征的动机是出于宗教热情,目的是将圣地归还基督教世界。但事实上 其动机至少部分是政治性的,即便不是主要政治性的。

The Cru­sades are widely be­lieved to have been mo­tiv­ated by re­li­gious zeal to re­store the Holy Land to Christen­dom.stable con­text In fact, the motives were at least partly, if not largely, polit­ical.

它可以调查过时的认知或研究:

It can sur­vey ob­sol­ete un­der­stand­ings or re­search:

很少有社会学概念像“宗教信仰能预防自杀”这一观点那样迅速地被人们遗忘。它曾是社会学的基本信条之一,但近期的一系列研究对其提出了质疑……稳定的背景。 然而,某些研究仍然发现宗教对自杀有一定影响……

Few so­ci­olo­gical con­cepts have fallen out of fa­vor as fast as the no­tion that re­li­gious faith provides a pro­tect­ive in­flu­ence against sui­cide. Once one of so­ci­ology’s ba­sic be­liefs, it has been called into ques­tion by a series of re­cent stud­ies. . . .stable con­text How­ever, cer­tain stud­ies still find an ef­fect of re­li­gion . . .

或者,这可能表明人们对问题本身存在误解:

Or it can point to a mis­un­der­stand­ing about the prob­lem it­self:

美国教育一直注重培养孩子的批判性思维能力,鼓励他们提出问题并检验答案。然而,批判性思维领域却被各种时尚潮流和特殊利益集团所主导。

Amer­ican edu­ca­tion has fo­cused on teach­ing chil­dren to think crit­ic­ally, to ask ques­tions and test an­swers.stable con­text But the field of crit­ical think­ing has been taken over by fads and spe­cial in­terests.

一些经验不足的研究者忽略了背景信息,论文开头就像是在课堂上接着刚才的讨论继续写一样。他们的引言非常简略,只有班上的其他同学才能看懂。

Some in­ex­per­i­enced re­search­ers skimp on con­text, open­ing their pa­pers as if they were pick­ing up a class con­ver­sa­tion where it left off. Their in­tro­duc­tions are so sketchy that only oth­ers in the course would un­der­stand them:

鉴于霍夫斯塔特未能尊重数学、音乐和艺术之间的差异,他的《具身心智》一书引发的强烈反响也就不足为奇了。然而,这场争议的起因却不太明朗。我认为,任何对人类心智的解释都必须是跨学科的……

In view of Hof­stadter’s fail­ure to re­spect the dif­fer­ences among math, mu­sic, and art, it is not sur­pris­ing that the re­sponse to The Em­bod­ied Mind would be stormy. It is less clear what caused the con­tro­versy. I will ar­gue that any ac­count of the hu­man mind must be in­ter­dis­cip­lin­ary. . . .

在撰写引言时,想象你是在给一位读过和你一样的资料、对同样的问题也比较感兴趣的人写信,但这位读者并不知道你的课堂上具体发生了什么。

When you draft your in­tro­duc­tion, ima­gine you are writ­ing to someone who has read some of the same sources as you and is gen­er­ally in­ter­ested in the same is­sues, but does not know what spe­cific­ally happened in your class.

另一些人则犯了相反的错误,认为应该列出所有与主题略有相关的文献资料。实际上,只需查阅那些你会直接修改其结论的文献即可。只有当你需要将问题置于更广泛的背景下进行探讨时,才应添加更多文献。

Oth­ers make the op­pos­ite mis­take, think­ing they should list every source they read that re­motely touches their topic. Sur­vey only those sources whose find­ings you will dir­ectly modify. Add more only if you need to loc­ate the prob­lem in a wider con­text.

14.3  步骤 2:陈述你的问题

14.3  Step 2: Stat­ing Your Prob­lem

一旦你确定了一个稳定的背景,就用一个问题来打破它(参见第二章)。正如我们所说,研究问题的陈述包含两个部分:

Once you state a stable con­text, dis­rupt it with a prob­lem (see chapter 2). As we have said, the state­ment of a re­search prob­lem has two parts:

  • ▪知识或理解不完整的状态,以及
  • ▪  a con­di­tion of in­com­plete know­ledge or un­der­stand­ing, and
  • ▪这种情况的后果,以及由此造成的理解上的更大差距
  • ▪  the con­sequences of that con­di­tion, a more sig­ni­fic­ant gap in un­der­stand­ing

您可以直接陈述条件:

You can state the con­di­tion dir­ectly:

……但 Motodyne 没有数据显示哪些图标是不言自明的。

. . . but Mo­to­dyne has no data show­ing which icons are self-ex­plan­at­ory.

或者,你也可以用间接提问的方式来暗示:

Or you can im­ply it in an in­dir­ect ques­tion:

真正的问题是,为什么这些角色几乎总是白人男性。

The real ques­tion is why these char­ac­ters are al­most al­ways white and male.

只有当你设想有人会问“那又怎样?”,然后详细阐述这种无知或理解偏差的后果时,你才能将这种状况视为一个完整的研究问题你可以将这种后果表述为直接成本:

You make this con­di­tion of ig­nor­ance or flawed un­der­stand­ing part of a full re­search prob­lem only when you ima­gine someone ask­ing, So what?, and then spell out as an an­swer that con­di­tion’s con­sequence. You can state that con­sequence as a dir­ect cost:

由于缺乏此类数据,我们无法确定需要重新设计哪些图标。成本

Lack­ing such data, we can­not de­term­ine which icons to re­design.cost

或者,你可以将成本转化为收益:

Or you can trans­form the cost into a be­ne­fit:

有了这些数据,我们就可以确定需要重新设计哪些图标

With such data, we could de­term­ine which icons to re­design.be­ne­fit

列举成本还是列举收益并非仅仅是风格问题。读者通常更容易被实际成本而非潜在收益所吸引。我们的建议是:在阐述问题时列举成本或后果;在阐述解决方案时列举收益,以增强其说服力。

The choice between stat­ing a cost and stat­ing a be­ne­fit is not just a mat­ter of style. Read­ers are typ­ic­ally more mo­tiv­ated by a real cost than by a po­ten­tial be­ne­fit. Our sug­ges­tion: state costs or con­sequences when present­ing your prob­lem; state be­ne­fits to in­tensify your solu­tion.

这是陈述问题的标准方式,但还有其他选择。

That’s the stand­ard way to state a prob­lem, but there are op­tions.

14.3.1  是否应该明确陈述问题的条件?

14.3.1  Should You State the Con­di­tion of a Prob­lem Ex­pli­citly?

有时,你会遇到一些非常熟悉的问题,以至于它的名称本身就暗示了该领域人士所面临的条件和后果:例如, DNA 在人格中的作用;莎士比亚的语言能力。同样,在数学和自然科学等一些领域,许多研究问题广为人知,因此只需说明其条件,就能让人联想到其后果。以下是对克里克和沃森关于 DNA 双螺旋结构的里程碑式论述的(简略)介绍:

Oc­ca­sion­ally, you tackle a prob­lem so fa­mil­iar that its name im­plies both its con­di­tion and con­sequence to those in the field: the role of DNA in per­son­al­ity; Shakespeare’s know­ledge of lan­guages. Like­wise, in some fields like math­em­at­ics and the nat­ural sci­ences, many re­search prob­lems are widely known, so just stat­ing the con­di­tion is enough to bring to mind its con­sequence. Here again is that (con­densed) in­tro­duc­tion to Crick and Wat­son’s land­mark ac­count of the double-helix struc­ture of DNA:

我们希望提出一种脱氧核糖核酸(DNA)盐的结构。该结构具有一些新颖的特征,具有重要的生物学意义。鲍林和科里此前已提出过一种核酸结构。他们慷慨地在发表前将手稿提供给了我们。他们的模型由三条相互缠绕的链组成,磷酸基团靠近纤维轴,碱基位于外侧。我们认为,这种结构并不令人满意……

We wish to sug­gest a struc­ture for the salt of deoxyribose nuc­leic acid (D.N.A.). This struc­ture has novel fea­tures which are of con­sid­er­able bio­lo­gical in­terest. A struc­ture for nuc­leic acid has already been pro­posed by Paul­ing and Corey. They kindly made their ma­nu­script avail­able to us in ad­vance of pub­lic­a­tion. Their model con­sists of three in­ter­twined chains, with the phos­phates near the fibre axis, and the bases on the out­side. In our opin­ion, this struc­ture is un­sat­is­fact­ory. . . .

他们只需“提出”一种DNA结构就足够了,因为他们知道每个人都想知道它到底是什么。(不过需要注意的是,他们也提出了一个问题,那就是他们提到了鲍林和科里提出的错误模型。)

It was enough for them merely to “sug­gest” a struc­ture for DNA, be­cause they knew every­one wanted to know what it was. (Note, though, that they do raise a prob­lem by men­tion­ing Paul­ing and Corey’s in­cor­rect model.)

在自然科学和大多数社会科学领域,研究人员通常会探讨读者熟悉的问题。在这些领域,你或许认为无需详细阐述你的研究问题。但如果你不告诉读者,他们就无法了解你的研究将填补他们知识体系中的哪个空白。

In the nat­ural sci­ences and most so­cial sci­ences, re­search­ers usu­ally ad­dress ques­tions fa­mil­iar to their read­ers. In these fields, you might think you do not need to spell out your prob­lem. But read­ers will not know the par­tic­u­lar gap in their know­ledge that your re­search will fill un­less you tell them.

在人文科学和某些社会科学领域,研究者常常提出他们自己发现甚至创造的问题,这些问题对读者来说新颖且往往出人意料。在这些领域,你必须明确描述你打算弥补的理解上的不足或不完整之处。

In the hu­man­it­ies and some so­cial sci­ences, re­search­ers more of­ten pose ques­tions that they alone have found or even in­ven­ted, ques­tions that read­ers find new and of­ten sur­pris­ing. In these fields, you must ex­pli­citly de­scribe the im­per­fect or in­com­plete un­der­stand­ing that you in­tend to rem­edy.

14.3.2  是否应该说明后果和好处?

14.3.2  Should You State Con­sequences and Be­ne­fits?

要想让读者认真对待你的问题,他们必须意识到问题不解决会给他们带来哪些损失,或者问题解决会给他们带来哪些好处。如果这些损失和好处显而易见,不仅对你而言如此,对读者也是如此,那么你可以省略它们。但如果并非如此,你就需要明确地说明它们。如有任何疑问,请务必说明。

For read­ers to take your prob­lem ser­i­ously, they must re­cog­nize the cost they will pay if it is not re­solved or the be­ne­fits they will gain if it is. When these costs and be­ne­fits are ob­vi­ous, not just for you but for your read­ers, you may omit them. But if not, you need to make them ex­pli­cit. If in doubt, state them.

有时你可以描述你的研究如何帮助读者避免实际成本:

Some­times you can de­scribe tan­gible costs that your re­search helps your read­ers avoid:

去年,河城监事会同意将海湾开发项目纳入河城的税基。然而,他们的计划缺乏经济分析。如果监事会在不了解成本的情况下投票决定吞并海湾开发项目,则可能加剧河城本已岌岌可危的财政状况。如果将污水和供水服务升级到符合城市标准的负担纳入分析,吞并的成本将远超监事会的预期。

Last year the River City Su­per­visors agreed that River City should add the Bay­side de­vel­op­ment to its tax base. Their plan, how­ever, was based on little eco­nomic ana­lysis. If the Board votes to an­nex Bay­side without un­der­stand­ing what it will cost the city, the Board risks worsen­ing River City’s already shaky fiscal situ­ation. When the bur­den of bring­ing sewer and wa­ter ser­vice up to city code are in­cluded in the ana­lysis, the an­nex­a­tion will cost more than the Board as­sumes.

这就是引入应用研究问题的方法,其中知识的匮乏(缺乏经济分析)会造成切实的后果(更高的成本)。而引入纯粹研究问题时,你无需用金钱等具体术语来解释后果,而是将其描述为误解,或者,更深入的理解可能带来的益处:

This is how to in­tro­duce a prob­lem of ap­plied re­search, in which the area of ig­nor­ance (no eco­nomic ana­lysis) has tan­gible con­sequences (higher costs). To in­tro­duce a prob­lem of pure re­search, you ex­plain the con­sequence not in tan­gible terms such as money but as mis­un­der­stand­ing or, al­tern­at­ively, as the pos­sible be­ne­fit of bet­ter un­der­stand­ing:

几十年来,美国城市为了扩大税基,不断吞并高档社区,但往往收效甚微,经济效益却不尽如人意。然而,如果当初进行一些基本的经济分析,这些结果本可以预见。吞并运动正是地方政治决策未能有效利用专家信息的典型案例。令人费解的是,为什么城市不寻求这些专家的意见。如果我们能够探究城市为何不依赖基本的经济分析,或许就能更好地理解它们在其他领域的决策为何也屡屡失败。本文分析了三个城市在未考虑经济后果的情况下吞并周边地区的决策过程。

For dec­ades, Amer­ican cit­ies have an­nexed up­scale neigh­bor­hoods to prop up tax bases, of­ten bring­ing dis­ap­point­ing eco­nomic be­ne­fits. But those res­ults could have been pre­dicted had they done ba­sic eco­nomic ana­lysis. The an­nex­a­tion move­ment is a case study of how polit­ical de­cisions at the local level fail to use ex­pert in­form­a­tion. What is puzz­ling is why cit­ies do not seek out that ex­pert­ise. If we can dis­cover why cit­ies fail to rely on ba­sic eco­nomic ana­lyses, we might bet­ter un­der­stand why their de­cision-mak­ing fails so of­ten in other areas as well. This pa­per ana­lyzes the de­cision-mak­ing pro­cess of three cit­ies that an­nexed sur­round­ing areas without con­sid­er­a­tion of eco­nomic con­sequences.

14.3.3  测试条件和后果

14.3.3  Test­ing Con­di­tions and Con­sequences

第二章中,我们提出了一种方法来测试你是否能清晰地阐述不解决问题的后果:在最能说明问题的句子之后。指出读者的无知或误解,然后问:那又怎样?

In chapter 2, we sug­ges­ted a way to test how clearly you ar­tic­u­late the con­sequences of not solv­ing a prob­lem: after the sen­tences that best state your read­ers’ con­di­tion of ig­nor­ance or mis­un­der­stand­ing, ask, So what?

Motodyne公司没有数据表明哪些图标是无需解释的。[那又怎样? ] 没有这些数据,它就无法确定需要重新设计哪些图标。

20 世纪 80 年代及之后,人们对二战时期人物“铆钉女工罗西”的兴趣重新燃起,这表明一个标志性形象可以被赋予新的政治和文化意义,而事后看来,我们也承认这些意义具有排他性。

又怎样?嗯……

Mo­to­dyne has no data show­ing which icons are self-ex­plan­at­ory. [So what?] Without such data, it can­not de­term­ine which icons to re­design.

The re­sur­gent in­terest in the World War II–era fig­ure Rosie the Riv­eter in the 1980s and after shows how an iconic im­age may be turned to new polit­ical and cul­tural ends that in ret­ro­spect we ac­know­ledge as also ex­clu­sion­ary.

[So what?] Well . . .

“那又怎样?”这种回答有时会让人恼火。如果你喜欢“铆钉女工罗西”的图片,你可以尽情欣赏而无需向任何人解释;但如果你想让别人认可你对这方面的兴趣,并将其视为一种研究,你就必须让他们明白它的意义所在。

An­swer­ing So what? can be ex­as­per­at­ing. If you like im­ages of Rosie the Riv­eter, you can ex­plore them without an­swer­ing to any­one, but if you want oth­ers to ap­pre­ci­ate this in­terest as re­search, you have to “sell” them on its sig­ni­fic­ance.

要想让观众关心这个问题,你必须让他们明白,你的问题就是他们的问题——即使他们现在还没意识到。你必须让他们相信,了解二战时期“铆钉女工罗西”的形象如何在20世纪80年代被重塑为女权主义偶像,并在本世纪被公认为白人女性赋权的象征,将有助于他们理解一些更重要的东西:文化身份是如何形成和变迁的,以及我们自身认知的局限性。

To con­vince an audi­ence to care, you have to show them that your prob­lem is their prob­lem—even if they don’t know it yet. You have to con­vince them that learn­ing how the World War II–era fig­ure of Rosie the Riv­eter was re­cast as a fem­in­ist icon in the 1980s and then later—in this cen­tury—re­cog­nized as a sym­bol of spe­cific­ally white wo­men’s em­power­ment will help them un­der­stand some­thing more im­port­ant both about how cul­tural iden­tit­ies are formed and changed and about the par­ti­al­ity of our own un­der­stand­ing.

当然,有些听众会再次质疑:“那又怎样?我不在乎文化认同。”对此,你只能说:“找错听众了。”成功的研究人员不仅知道如何发现并解决有趣的问题,他们也知道如何找到(或创造)对他们所解决的问题感兴趣的受众。

To be sure, some audi­ences will ask again, So what? I don’t care about cul­tural iden­tit­ies. To which you can only say, Wrong audi­ence. Suc­cess­ful re­search­ers know how to find and solve in­ter­est­ing prob­lems, but they also know how to find (or cre­ate) an audi­ence in­ter­ested in the prob­lems they solve.

如果你确信你的听众了解你提出的问题所带来的后果,你或许可以决定不明确指出这些后果。克里克和沃森并没有具体说明不了解DNA结构的代价,因为他们知道听众已经意识到,如果不了解DNA结构,就无法理解遗传学(这才是更重要的东西)。如果克里克和沃森把这个后果说得那么清楚,可能会显得多余或居高临下。

If you are sure your audi­ence knows the con­sequences of your prob­lem, you might de­cide not to state them ex­pli­citly. Crick and Wat­son did not spe­cify the cost of not know­ing the struc­ture of DNA be­cause they knew their audi­ence already re­cog­nized that without un­der­stand­ing the struc­ture of DNA, they could not un­der­stand ge­net­ics (some­thing more im­port­ant). Had Crick and Wat­son spelled out that con­sequence, it might have seemed re­dund­ant or con­des­cend­ing.

如果你正在着手你的第一个研究项目,任何一位理智的老师都不会期望你详细阐述你的问题对你所在领域的影响。但是,当你能够阐述你的问题对你自身的影响时,你就朝着这个方向迈出了重要一步。而当你能够证明,通过更好地理解一件事,你也能更好地理解一些更重要的东西(即使这些东西对你而言意义重大)时,你就迈出了更大的一步。

If you are tack­ling your first re­search pro­ject, no reas­on­able teacher will ex­pect you to state the con­sequences of your prob­lem for your field in de­tail. But you take a big step in that dir­ec­tion when you can state the con­sequences of your prob­lem for your­self. You take an even big­ger step when you can show that by bet­ter un­der­stand­ing one thing, you bet­ter un­der­stand some­thing much more im­port­ant, even if only to you.

14.4  第三步:陈述你的回应

14.4  Step 3: Stat­ing Your Re­sponse

一旦你用一个问题打破了读者稳定的语境,他们就会期待你用两种方式之一来解决这个问题:要么直接阐明你的主要观点,要么承诺稍后会解决。读者会在引言的结尾处寻找这种阐述或承诺。

Once you dis­rupt your read­ers’ stable con­text with a prob­lem, they ex­pect you to re­solve it in one of two ways: by stat­ing your main point or by prom­ising that you will do so later on. Read­ers look for this state­ment or prom­ise at the end of your in­tro­duc­tion.

14.4.1  简述解决方案要点

14.4.1  State the Gist of Your Solu­tion

你可以在引言的结尾明确阐述你的主要观点/解决方案:

You can state your main point/solu­tion ex­pli­citly to­ward the end of your in­tro­duc­tion:

由于他汀类药物能有效降低胆固醇且副作用似乎很小,长期以来一直被用作心血管疾病和中风的常规预防性治疗药物。然而,2010年代进行的几项研究表明,他汀类药物可能会增加认知障碍和痴呆的风险,这导致医学界对其广泛使用产生了一些疑虑。我们对三十多项近期研究进行的荟萃分析表明,这种担忧不仅没有根据,而且实际上,他汀类药物可能对老年人的认知衰退具有一定的抑制作用。

Be­cause of their ef­fect­ive­ness in lower­ing cho­les­terol and seem­ingly minor side ef­fects, stat­ins have long been pre­scribed as a routine pre­vent­at­ive treat­ment for car­di­ovas­cu­lar dis­ease and strokes.stable con­text How­ever, sev­eral stud­ies con­duc­ted in the 2010s sug­ges­ted that stat­ins may in­crease risk of cog­nit­ive impair­ment and de­men­tia,destabil­iz­ing con­di­tion lead­ing to some un­cer­tainty in the med­ical com­munity about their wide­spread use.con­sequence Our meta-ana­lysis of over three dozen more re­cent stud­ies sug­gests not only that this con­cern is un­foun­ded but that, in fact, stat­ins may have some in­hib­it­ory ef­fect on cog­nit­ive de­cline in older adults.gist of solu­tion/main point

除非你有充分的理由不这样做,否则采用这种模式是最佳方法。

Un­less you have a good reason not to, ad­opt­ing this pat­tern is the best ap­proach.

一些新晋研究者担心,如果过早揭示主要观点,甚至仅仅概述论证结构,读者会感到“无聊”而停止阅读。另一些人则担心重复自己。这两种担忧都是没有根据的。当你选择这种结构时,你就把主导权交给了读者。你是在告诉他们:你掌控着如何阅读这篇文章。你了解我的问题及其解决方案,也就是我的观点。 读者可以自行决定如何继续阅读,甚至是否继续阅读。这样就不会有任何意外。如果你等到结论部分才阐明你的主要观点,就等于要求读者相信,即使他们费尽心思读完你的文章,最终也会觉得物有所值。但很多人不会相信。

Some new re­search­ers fear that if they re­veal their main point too early, or even out­line the or­gan­iz­a­tion of their ar­gu­ment, their read­ers will be “bored” and stop read­ing. Oth­ers worry about re­peat­ing them­selves. Both fears are base­less. When you choose this struc­ture, you put your read­ers in charge. You say to them, You con­trol how to read this pa­per. You know my prob­lem and its solu­tion, my point. You can de­cide how—even whether—to read on. No sur­prises. If you wait un­til your con­clu­sion to state your main point, you ask them to trust that fol­low­ing your pa­per through every twist and turn will be worth it in the end. Many won’t.

对于听众而言,事先明确你的要点尤为重要,因为他们面前没有文本(参见16.3.2)。与读者不同,他们如果迷失方向也无法回顾。

For audi­ences of present­a­tions, know­ing your main point up front is even more valu­able be­cause they won’t have your text in front of them (see 16.3.2). Un­like read­ers, they can’t look back if they get lost.

14.4.2  承诺提供解决方案

14.4.2  Prom­ise a Solu­tion

但你可能出于某些原因不宜在文章开头就提出主要观点。例如,在某些领域和行业,读者期望论点出现在章节或整篇文章的结尾,如果你打破了这种预期,可能会让他们感到困惑。同样,你的主要观点可能过于复杂,无法在开头简洁概括(尽管我们常常误以为可以,但事实并非如此)。在这种情况下,你可以解释文章的论述思路和方向,并承诺或暗示你将在结论部分提出主要观点/解决方案:

But you may have reas­ons not to give your main point up front. For ex­ample, in some fields and pro­fes­sions, read­ers ex­pect claims to ap­pear at the end of sec­tions or whole doc­u­ments, and if you vi­ol­ate that ex­pect­a­tion, you may con­fuse them. Like­wise, your main point may be too in­volved to sum­mar­ize suc­cinctly at the out­set (al­though of­ten when we think it is, we’re wrong). In such cases, you can ex­plain how your pa­per will pro­ceed and where it is headed, prom­ising or im­ply­ing that you will present your main point/solu­tion in your con­clu­sion:

2010年代的几项研究表明,他汀类药物可能会增加认知障碍和痴呆的风险。[那又怎样? ] 因此,医学界对广泛使用他汀类药物产生了疑虑。[那么,你们发现了什么? ]在本报告中,我们分析了三十多项关于他汀类药物疗效和副作用的最新研究,并特别关注其对认知功能的影响。接下来,我们将讨论……(此处省略部分内容)

Sev­eral stud­ies con­duc­ted in the 2010s sug­ges­ted that stat­ins may in­crease risk of cog­nit­ive impair­ment and de­men­tia. [So what?] The med­ical com­munity, there­fore, has be­come un­cer­tain about their wide­spread use. [Well, what have you found?] In this re­port, we ana­lyze over three dozen more re­cent stud­ies of stat­ins’ ef­fic­acy and side ef­fects, giv­ing spe­cial em­phasis to their ef­fects on cog­ni­tion. We then dis­cuss . . .prom­ise of point to come

就像某些摘要一样(参见第 11 章的快速提示),这类引言提供了一个“起点”,引导读者进入文章正文。这个起点句应该包含贯穿全文的关键概念,以便读者了解这些概念。最缺乏说服力的承诺莫过于仅仅宣布一个模糊的主题:

Like some ab­stracts (see the Quick Tip in chapter 11), such in­tro­duc­tions of­fer a “launch­ing point” that pro­pels read­ers into the pa­per. That launch­ing-point sen­tence should in­clude terms nam­ing the key con­cepts that will run through your pa­per, to alert read­ers to them. The weak­est prom­ise is one that merely an­nounces a vague topic:

本研究调查了他汀类药物的副作用。

This study in­vest­ig­ates the side ef­fects of stat­ins.

再次强调,如果你把论点放在文章结尾,就等于要求读者相信读到最后是值得的。如果你不仅提供一个大致的主题,还提供一个解决方案或论点的概要(或者两者兼有),他们会更加信任你:

Again, when you save your point for the end of your pa­per, you ask your read­ers to trust that get­ting to it is worth the ef­fort. They’ll trust you more if you provide not just a gen­eral topic but an out­line of your solu­tion or ar­gu­ment (or both):

水力涡轮机进水口和导流格栅的设计方案有很多,但现场评估各种潜在配置方案成本效益不高。计算机建模是一种更可行的替代方案。本研究将评估三种用于评估进水口和格栅配置的计算机模型——Quattro、AVOC 和 Turbo-plex——以确定它们的相对可靠性、速度和易用性。

There are many designs for hy­dro­elec­tric tur­bine in­takes and di­ver­sion screens, but on-site eval­u­ation of po­ten­tial con­fig­ur­a­tions is not cost-ef­fect­ive. A more vi­able al­tern­at­ive is com­puter mod­el­ing. This study will as­sess three com­puter mod­els for eval­u­at­ing in­take and screen con­fig­ur­a­tions—Quat­tro, AVOC, and Turbo-plex—to de­term­ine their re­l­at­ive re­li­ab­il­ity, speed, and ease of use.

这种计划在自然科学和社会科学领域很常见,但在人文科学领域则不太常见,因为有些人认为这种做法有点过于强硬。

This kind of plan is com­mon in the sci­ences and so­cial sci­ences, but less fre­quent in the hu­man­it­ies, where some con­sider it a bit heavy-handed.

14.5  设定合适的节奏

14.5  Set­ting the Right Pace

撰写引言时,你必须决定提出问题的节奏。这取决于读者对该领域的了解程度。引言的节奏因研究领域而异。研究问题在各自领域内已为人熟知的学者可以快速切入;而那些研究问题尚未被广泛关注的领域的学者则必须放慢节奏。

When craft­ing your in­tro­duc­tion, you must de­cide how quickly to raise your prob­lem. That de­pends on how much your read­ers know. The pace of an in­tro­duc­tion var­ies by field. Re­search­ers whose prob­lems are already fa­mil­iar to their re­search com­munit­ies can open quickly; those who work in fields where prob­lems are not widely shared must start more slowly.

但你的开场白节奏也暗示着其他信息。如果你开场迅速,暗示听众是你的同行;如果你开场缓慢,则暗示听众的知识水平不如你。在接下来的例子中,作者用一句话概括了见多识广的工程师们达成的共识,然后迅速打破了这种共识:

But the pace of your in­tro­duc­tion sig­nals some­thing else as well. When you open quickly, you im­ply an audi­ence of peers; when you open slowly, you im­ply an audi­ence that knows less than you. In this next ex­ample, the writer de­votes one sen­tence to an­noun­cing a con­sensus among well-in­formed en­gin­eers and then briskly dis­rupts it:

挤压式阻尼器(SFD)中的流体膜力通常由经典润滑理论的雷诺方程计算得出。然而,旋转机械尺寸的不断增大要求在SFD的设计中考虑流体惯性效应。如果没有这些效应……

Fluid-film forces in squeeze-film dampers (SFDs) are usu­ally ob­tained from the Reyn­olds equa­tion of clas­sical lub­ric­a­tion the­ory. How­ever, the in­creas­ing size of ro­tat­ing ma­chinery re­quires the in­clu­sion of fluid in­er­tia ef­fects in the design of SFDs. Without them . . .

(我们完全不知道这些话是什么意思,但背景+问题的结构很清晰。)

(We have no idea what any of that means, but the struc­ture of con­text + prob­lem is clear.)

接下来这位作者也涉及一些技术概念,但他耐心地向技术知识较少的读者讲解这些概念:

This next writer also ad­dresses tech­nical con­cepts but pa­tiently lays them out for an audi­ence with less tech­nical know­ledge:

在水力发电项目中,保护洄游鱼类的一种方法是在涡轮机进水口设置滤网进行分流……[此处省略110字,解释滤网]。由于滤网的效率取决于鱼类行为和水流的相互作用,因此可以通过测定其水力性能来评估滤网设计……[此处省略40字,解释滤网]。 解释水力学原理]。这项研究有助于更好地理解该技术的水力学特性,这可以指导未来的设计。

A method of pro­tect­ing mi­grat­ing fish at hy­dro­elec­tric power de­vel­op­ments is di­ver­sion by screen­ing tur­bine in­takes . . . [an­other 110 words ex­plain­ing screens]. Since the ef­fi­ciency of screens is de­term­ined by the in­ter­ac­tion of fish be­ha­vior and hy­draulic flow, screen design can be eval­u­ated by de­term­in­ing its hy­draulic per­form­ance . . . [40 more words ex­plain­ing hy­draul­ics]. This study provides a bet­ter un­der­stand­ing of the hy­draulic fea­tures of this tech­nique, which may guide fu­ture designs.

把握好节奏很重要。如果你的听众知识渊博,而你开场太慢,他们可能会觉得懂得太少。但如果听众知识匮乏,而你开场太快,他们可能会觉得你不够体贴。

It is im­port­ant to get the pace right. If your audi­ence is know­ledge­able and you open slowly, they may think you know too little. But if the audi­ence knows little and you open quickly, they may find you in­con­sid­er­ate.

14.6  找到你的最初几个词

14.6  Find­ing Your First Few Words

许多作家发现开头一两句话特别难写,因此很容易落入俗套:

Many writers find the first sen­tence or two es­pe­cially dif­fi­cult to write, and so they fall into clichés:

  • ▪ 重复作业中的语言。(如果你不知道如何开头,可以先用自己的话复述一遍,但在修改时要重写这些句子。)
  • ▪  Re­peat­ing the lan­guage of an as­sign­ment. (If you are strug­gling to be­gin, jump-start your writ­ing by para­phras­ing it, but re­write those sen­tences when you re­vise.)
  • ▪ 引用词典条目:“韦氏词典伦理定义为……”如果一个词重要到需要定义,那么词典的定义就不足以解释它的含义。
  • ▪  Cit­ing a dic­tion­ary entry: “Web­ster’s defines eth­ics as . . .” If a word is im­port­ant enough to define, a dic­tion­ary defin­i­tion won’t serve.
  • ▪ 对历史或社会做出笼统的断言:“纵观历史/在当今社会,女性拥有……”
  • ▪  Mak­ing a sweep­ing claim about his­tory or so­ci­ety: “Through­out his­tory/In today’s so­ci­ety, wo­men have . . .”
  • ▪ 以宏大的开场白:“几个世纪以来,最深刻的哲学家们一直在思考一个重要的问题……”如果你的主题宏大,它本身的重要性自然会体现出来。
  • ▪  Start­ing grandly: “The most pro­found philo­soph­ers have for cen­tur­ies wrestled with the im­port­ant ques­tion of . . .” If your sub­ject is grand, it will speak its own im­port­ance.

这些失误源于良好的初衷:他们试图与某个研究群体建立共同基础。问题在于,所有案例中的群体都选错了。在第一个例子中,群体过于狭窄:仅仅是学生的老师。在其他例子中,群体又过于宽泛:这些作者试图寻找一个全人类都能认同的语境。为了避免这些失误,你应该以一种更容易吸引你希望关注的特定研究群体的方式来展开论述。

These mis­cues arise from a good im­pulse: they are at­tempts to es­tab­lish com­mon ground with a re­search com­munity. The prob­lem in all cases is that it is the wrong com­munity. In that first ex­ample, the com­munity is too nar­row: it is just the stu­dent’s teacher. In the rest, the com­munity is too broad: those writers are grop­ing for a con­text that all of hu­man­ity could agree to. To avoid these mis­steps, open in a way that is likely to ap­peal to the spe­cific re­search com­munity you hope to in­terest.

以下是三个入门建议。

Here are three sug­ges­tions for how to be­gin.

14.6.1  以一个值得注意的事实开头

14.6.1  Open with a Note­worthy Fact

那些认为给富人减税可以刺激经济的人应该想想,美国最富有的 1% 的人控制着美国三分之一的财富。

Those who think that tax cuts for the rich stim­u­late the eco­nomy should con­tem­plate the fact that the top 1 per­cent of Amer­ic­ans con­trol one-third of Amer­ica’s total wealth.

14.6.2  以一句引人注目的引言开篇

14.6.2  Open with a Strik­ing Quo­ta­tion

只有当其用词预示着引言其余部分的关键术语时,才应这样做:

Do this only if its words an­ti­cip­ate key terms in the rest of your in­tro­duc­tion:

“扬·凡·艾克真迹作品中蕴含着一种纯粹的感官之美,散发着一种奇特的魅力,与我们沉醉于宝石之中时的感受颇为相似。”埃德温·帕诺夫斯基在此暗示了扬·凡·艾克作品中某种奇异的魔力。他的画作如同宝石般令人着迷……

“From the sheer sen­su­ous beauty of a genu­ine Jan van Eyck there em­an­ates a strange fas­cin­a­tion not un­like that which we ex­per­i­ence when per­mit­ting ourselves to be hyp­not­ized by pre­cious stones.” Ed­win Pan­of­sky sug­gests here some­thing strangely ma­gical in Jan van Eyck’s works. His im­ages hold a jewel-like fas­cin­a­tion . . .

14.6.3  以相关轶事开头

14.6.3  Open with a Rel­ev­ant An­ec­dote

本文以一则关于政治抗议的轶事开篇:

This art­icle opens with an an­ec­dote about a polit­ical protest:

1989年10月,数千名德意志民主共和国(东德)公民在莱比锡举行抗议活动,要求进行经济和政治改革。对于研究威权政治的学者来说,公民抗议并要求改善经济状况是司空见惯的景象……然而,莱比锡的抗议者还展示了一些标语,这些标语的信息在威权政治文献中并不常见。抗议者要求“砍倒窃国者,而不是砍树”,并要求“莱比锡的空气不再有硫磺味”(引自Bölsche等人,1989年,第92页)。由此可见,他们表达了对环境污染的不满。

In Oc­to­ber 1989, sev­eral thou­sand cit­izens of the Ger­man Demo­cratic Re­pub­lic (GDR) pro­tested in the city of Leipzig to de­mand eco­nomic and polit­ical re­forms. To schol­ars of au­thor­it­arian polit­ics, cit­izens protest­ing and de­mand­ing eco­nomic im­prove­ments is a fa­mil­iar sight. . . . How­ever, the pro­test­ers in Leipzig also dis­played a num­ber of signs whose mes­sages fea­ture less prom­in­ently in the lit­er­at­ure on au­thor­it­arian polit­ics. The pro­test­ers wanted to “saw down the klepto­crats, not the trees” and de­man­ded “Leipzig air, without sul­furic odor” (quoted in Bölsche et al. 1989, 92). Thus, they signaled griev­ances about en­vir­on­mental pol­lu­tion.

这则轶事中经济和环境问题令人惊讶地结合在一起,引出了本文探讨的问题:专制政权如何权衡经济增长(他们试图通过经济增长来阻止政治不满)和随之而来的污染增加(这会加剧政治不满)之间的利弊。

The sur­pris­ing con­junc­tion of eco­nomic and en­vir­on­mental con­cerns in the an­ec­dote frames the ques­tion the art­icle ex­plores: how au­thor­it­arian re­gimes nav­ig­ate the trade-off between eco­nomic growth (through which they seek to fore­stall polit­ical dis­con­tent) and the in­creased pol­lu­tion that ac­com­pan­ies it (which en­cour­ages polit­ical dis­con­tent).

14.7  撰写结论

14.7  Writ­ing Your Con­clu­sion

即使你的论证中没有专门的“结论”部分,也会有一两个段落起到类似结论的作用。结论部分是对你的论证进行总结,但同样重要的是,它提供了一个机会,通过提出你的研究让你看到的新的问题来拓展讨论。撰写结论的一种方法是:使用与引言中相同的元素,但顺序相反。

Even if your ar­gu­ment doesn’t have a sec­tion labeled Con­clu­sion, it will have a para­graph or two that serve as one. Your con­clu­sion is an oc­ca­sion to sum up your ar­gu­ment, but just as im­port­ant, it is an op­por­tun­ity to ex­tend the con­ver­sa­tion by sug­gest­ing new ques­tions your re­search has al­lowed you to see. One way to write a con­clu­sion is to use the same ele­ments you used in your in­tro­duc­tion but in re­verse or­der.

14.7.1  从你的主要观点开始

14.7.1  Start with Your Main Point

在结论的开头部分提出你的主要观点。如果你已经在引言中提到过,那么在这里要更详细地重复一遍,但不要逐字逐句地重复。

State your main point near the be­gin­ning of your con­clu­sion. If you already stated it in your in­tro­duc­tion, re­peat it here but more fully; do not simply re­peat it word for word.

14.7.2  添加新的含义或应用

14.7.2  Add a New Sig­ni­fic­ance or Ap­plic­a­tion

在你提出观点之后,说明其重要性,最好能对“那又怎样?”这个问题给出新的答案。例如,这篇结论的作者引入了最高法院关于军事死刑判决的裁决的另一个后果:

After your point, say why it’s sig­ni­fic­ant, prefer­ably with a new an­swer to So what? For ex­ample, the writer of this con­clu­sion in­tro­duces an ad­di­tional con­sequence of the Su­preme Court’s de­cision on mil­it­ary death sen­tences:

鉴于最高法院近期驳回了强制执行死刑的裁决,叛国罪强制执行死刑显然违宪,因此国会必须对其进行修订。然而,更重要的是,如果《统一军事司法法典》被修改,将会挑战军事文化中“终极背叛必须受到终极惩罚”这一基本价值观。届时,国会将不得不面对军方对正义的理解。

In light of re­cent Su­preme Court de­cisions re­ject­ing man­dat­ory cap­ital pun­ish­ment, the man­dat­ory death pen­alty for treason is ap­par­ently un­con­sti­tu­tional and must there­fore be re­vised by Con­gress. More sig­ni­fic­antly, though, if the Uni­form Code of Mil­it­ary Justice is changed, it will chal­lenge the fun­da­mental value of mil­it­ary cul­ture that ul­ti­mate be­trayal re­quires the ul­ti­mate pen­alty. Con­gress will then have to deal with the mil­it­ary’s sense of what is just.

这条观察结果应该放在结论部分而不是引言部分,因为它引出了文章尚未探讨的进一步问题:军方究竟会如何应对对其价值观的挑战?国会又应该如何应对?正如你在引言中通过阐述问题的后果来确立其重要性一样,你也可以在结论中通过指出解决方案的其他意义来扩展其意义。

This ob­ser­va­tion be­longs in the con­clu­sion rather than in the in­tro­duc­tion be­cause it sug­gests fur­ther ques­tions the art­icle doesn’t take up: How ex­actly will the mil­it­ary re­spond to that chal­lenge to its val­ues? How should Con­gress re­spond in turn? Just as in your in­tro­duc­tion you es­tab­lish the im­port of your prob­lem by stat­ing its con­sequences, so in your con­clu­sion you can ex­pand the sig­ni­fic­ance of your solu­tion by not­ing its ad­di­tional im­plic­a­tions.

14.7.3  呼吁开展更多研究

14.7.3  Call for More Re­search

正如你的开篇概述了已有的研究一样,你的结论也可以呼吁开展更多研究:

Just as your open­ing con­text sur­veys re­search already done, so your con­clu­sion can call for re­search still to do:

新手和专家级诊断人员之间的这些差异定义了他们的成熟和发展。但是,尽管我们知道新手和专家是如何……换个角度思考,我们并不了解新手在社会经验中的哪些因素促使他们像专家一样思考。我们需要开展长期研究,探讨指导和辅导如何影响结果,以及积极的解释和批评是否能帮助新手更快地成为熟练的诊断人员。

These dif­fer­ences between novice and ex­pert dia­gnosti­cians define their mat­ur­a­tion and de­vel­op­ment. But while we know how novices and ex­perts think dif­fer­ently, we do not un­der­stand which ele­ments in the so­cial ex­per­i­ence of novices lead them to think as ex­perts. We need lon­git­ud­inal stud­ies on how ment­or­ing and coach­ing af­fect out­comes and whether act­ive ex­plan­a­tion and cri­tique help novices be­come skilled dia­gnosti­cians more quickly.

当你阐明待办事项时,你就能让对话继续下去。所以在你写下最后一句话之前,不妨想象一下,如果有人对你的工作很感兴趣,想要进一步了解:他们还想了解什么?你会建议他们做哪些研究?毕竟,你当初可能也是这样发现自己的问题的。

When you state what re­mains to do, you keep the con­ver­sa­tion alive. So be­fore you write your last words, ima­gine someone fas­cin­ated by your work who wants to fol­low up on it: What more would they like to know? What re­search would you sug­gest they do? After all, that may have been how you found your own prob­lem.

▶ 小贴士:在标题中使用关键词

▶ Quick Tip: Use Key Terms in Titles

读者首先读到的内容——也是你最后应该写的内容——是你的标题。新手作者往往只是简单地加上几个词来概括文章主题。这是个误区:标题的作用在于帮助读者准确理解文章内容。请比较以下三个标题:

The first thing that read­ers read—and the last thing you should write—is your title. Be­gin­ning writers just at­tach a few words to sug­gest the top­ics of their pa­pers. That’s a mis­take: a title is use­ful when it helps read­ers un­der­stand spe­cific­ally what is to come. Com­pare these three titles:

小额信贷

小额信贷与经济发展

小额信贷作为经济发展战略:发挥其提升妇女地位的潜力

Mi­crofin­ance

Mi­crofin­ance and Eco­nomic De­vel­op­ment

Mi­crofin­ance as a Strategy for Eco­nomic De­vel­op­ment: Real­iz­ing Its Po­ten­tial for Im­prov­ing the Stand­ing of Wo­men

将贯穿全文的关键术语(参见10.2.211.4)放入标题中,这样当读者遇到这些术语时,就会觉得你的文章符合他们的预期。(两部分标题可以为关键术语提供更多空间。在主标题末尾添加冒号,引出更具体的第二部分,即副标题。 )这条建议同样适用于各章节的标题。

Put into your title the key terms that run through your pa­per (see 10.2.2 and 11.4), so that when read­ers en­counter those terms, they will feel that your text has met their ex­pect­a­tions. (Two-part titles give you more room for key terms. End the main title with a colon that in­tro­duces a more spe­cific second part, or sub­title.) This ad­vice also ap­plies to head­ings of sec­tions.

15 修改风格

15  Re­vis­ing Style

清晰地讲述你的故事

Telling Your Story Clearly

到目前为止,我们主要关注了论文的论证和结构。本章将向您展示如何修改句子,使读者觉得它们清晰明了、简洁明了。

So far we have fo­cused on the ar­gu­ment and or­gan­iz­a­tion of your pa­per. In this chapter, we show you how to re­vise your sen­tences so that read­ers will think they are clear and dir­ect.

读者只有在理解你的论证后才会接受你的观点,但如果他们看不懂你的句子,就无法理解你的论证。修改文章时,在完善论证和组织结构之后,务必抽出时间进行最后润色,使句子尽可能通俗易懂,同时又不影响你思想的复杂性。但这里有个问题:你可能无法仅凭阅读就判断哪些句子需要修改。因为你已经知道你想表达的意思,所以你会不自觉地将你希望读者理解的内容强加于句子之中。为了确保你的句子对读者来说和对你来说一样清晰易懂,你需要一种方法来识别那些即使你觉得没问题的句子,它们也可能存在理解上的困难。

Read­ers will ac­cept your claim only if they un­der­stand your ar­gu­ment, but they won’t un­der­stand your ar­gu­ment if they can’t un­der­stand your sen­tences. When re­vis­ing, after you at­tend to your ar­gu­ment and or­gan­iz­a­tion, find time to make a last pass to make your sen­tences as easy to read as the com­plex­ity of your ideas al­lows. But there’s a catch: you prob­ably won’t be able to tell which sen­tences need re­vis­ing just by read­ing them. Since you already know what you want them to mean, you will read into them what you want your read­ers to get out of them. To en­sure that your sen­tences will be as clear to your read­ers as they are to you, you need a way to identify dif­fi­cult sen­tences even when they seem fine to you.

15.1  评判风格

15.1  Judging Style

如果让你阅读一篇风格类似于以下示例的文章,你会选择哪一个?

If you had to read an art­icle in the style of one of the fol­low­ing ex­amples, which would you choose?

1a. 传统管理实践认为,互动与协作能够提升员工的创造力和生产力,从而增强组织绩效。然而,除非协作与隔离交替出现,除非工作空间配置能够提供隔离的机会,否则组织效能的提升反而可能降低。

1b. 管理者希望员工之间能够互动协作。他们认为,员工这样做会变得更有创造力、更高效,从而提升组织的绩效。但员工也需要独立工作的机会,工作场所必须提供这些机会。否则,组织的效率可能会降低。

1c. 管理者通常认为,员工互动协作会让他们变得更有创造力、工作效率更高,从而提升整个组织的绩效。但是,除非员工也有机会独立工作,并且工作空间的配置能够提供这种机会,否则组织的效率可能会降低,而不是提高。

1a. Con­ven­tional man­age­ment prac­tice as­sumes that in­ter­ac­tion and col­lab­or­a­tion en­hance or­gan­iz­a­tional per­form­ance by im­prov­ing em­ployee cre­ativ­ity and pro­ductiv­ity. But un­less col­lab­or­a­tion is punc­tu­ated by isol­a­tion, and un­less work­space con­fig­ur­a­tions provide isol­a­tion op­por­tun­it­ies, erosion rather than en­hance­ment of or­gan­iz­a­tional ef­fect­ive­ness may res­ult.

1b. Man­agers want the people who work for them to in­ter­act and col­lab­or­ate. They as­sume that when people do this, they be­come more cre­at­ive and pro­duct­ive. The or­gan­iz­a­tion then per­forms bet­ter. But people also need op­por­tun­it­ies to work alone, and work­places need to provide these op­por­tun­it­ies. Oth­er­wise, the or­gan­iz­a­tion may be­come less ef­fect­ive.

1c. Man­agers con­ven­tion­ally as­sume that when em­ploy­ees in­ter­act and col­lab­or­ate, they be­come more cre­at­ive and pro­duct­ive, thus lead­ing the whole or­gan­iz­a­tion to per­form bet­ter. But un­less em­ploy­ees also have op­por­tun­it­ies to work alone, and un­less work­spaces are con­figured to provide them, the or­gan­iz­a­tion may be­come less rather than more ef­fect­ive.

很少有读者选择 (1a):它听起来晦涩难懂、抽象难懂。有些人选择 (1b),但对很多人来说,它显得过于简单。大多数人选择 (1c),这听起来像是同事之间的对话。学术写作中最糟糕的问题之一就是,太多研究人员的写作风格都像 (1a) 那样。

Few read­ers choose (1a): it sounds dense, ab­stract, opaque. Some choose (1b), but to many it sounds simplistic. Most choose (1c), which sounds like one col­league speak­ing to an­other. One of the worst prob­lems in aca­demic writ­ing is that too many re­search­ers sound like (1a).

一些研究者更倾向于(1a),他们认为,深奥的思考需要大量的文字表达,当他们试图将复杂的概念阐明时,为了追求过于简单的理解,往往会牺牲思想的细微差别和复杂性。如果读者不理解,那也没办法;他们应该更加努力。

A few re­search­ers prefer (1a), claim­ing that heavy think­ing de­mands heavy writ­ing, that when they try to make com­plic­ated ideas clear, they sac­ri­fice nu­ances and com­plex­ity of thought for too-easy un­der­stand­ing. If read­ers don’t un­der­stand, too bad; they should work harder.

或许如此。晦涩难懂的文风有时可能表明一部天才之作难度极高,但更多时候,它反映的是作者思路模糊,缺乏对读者的理解。有些作者为了避免晦涩的文风,反而矫枉过正,使用像上文(1b)那样的简单句式。但我们相信大多数人不会遇到这个问题。我们在此探讨的是过于“学术化”的文风问题,也就是说,过于晦涩难懂。复杂迂回的文字并非优秀作家所追求的。

Per­haps. Dense writ­ing may oc­ca­sion­ally in­dic­ate the ir­re­du­cible dif­fi­culty of a work of genius, but more of­ten it’s a sign of hazy think­ing by writers who aren’t con­sid­er­ing their read­ers. Some writers do go too far in avoid­ing a dense style, us­ing simplistic sen­tences like those in (1b) above. But we as­sume that most of you do not have that prob­lem. We ad­dress here the prob­lem of a style that is too “aca­demic,” which is to say, more dif­fi­cult than it has to be. Con­vo­luted and in­dir­ect prose is not what good writers aim for.

这个问题对那些刚开始从事高级研究的人尤其不利,因为他们会面临双重困境。当我们撰写挑战我们理解的新颖复杂观点时,我们的表达往往不如平时清晰。而新晋研究人员更会加剧这个问题,因为他们误以为复杂的文风是地位和专业性的象征,于是模仿他们读到的晦涩难懂的文章。这种情况是可以避免的。

This prob­lem es­pe­cially af­fects those just start­ing ad­vanced work be­cause they are hit by double trouble. When we write about new and com­plex ideas that chal­lenge our un­der­stand­ing, we write less clearly than we or­din­ar­ily would. But new re­search­ers com­pound that prob­lem when, be­liev­ing that a com­plex style sig­nals status and ex­pert­ise, they im­it­ate the tangled prose they read. That we can avoid.

15.2  清晰写作的前两个原则

15.2  The First Two Prin­ciples of Clear Writ­ing

15.2.1  区分印象与其原因

15.2.1  Dis­tin­guish­ing Im­pres­sions from Their Causes

如果我们问你为什么选择上面的 (1c) 而不是 (1a),你可能会说 (1a)晦涩难懂、冗长繁复晦涩难懂,而 (1c)清晰简洁、直截了当。但严格来说,这些词语描述的并非句子本身,而是你阅读时的感受。如果你说 (1a) 晦涩难懂实际上是在说读起来很费劲;如果你说 (1c) 清晰易懂实际上是在说你觉得它很容易理解。这种印象式的词语并不能帮助你修改像 (1a) 这样的句子因为它们没有解释是什么让你对文字产生了​​这种感觉。因此,你需要一种思考句子的方式,将“困惑”之类的印象与句子让你感到困惑的内容联系起来。更重要的是,你必须知道如何修改那些你觉得清晰但读者可能不理解的句子。

If we asked you to ex­plain why you chose (1c) over (1a) above, you would prob­ably say that (1a) was un­clear, wordy, and dense while (1c) was clear, con­cise, and dir­ect. But strictly speak­ing, those words de­scribe not those sen­tences but how you felt as you read them. If you said that (1a) was dense, you were really say­ing that you had a hard time get­ting through it; if you said (1c) was clear, you were say­ing that you found it easy to un­der­stand. Such im­pres­sion­istic words don’t help you fix sen­tences like (1a) be­cause they don’t ex­plain what it is about the words on the page or screen that makes you feel as you do. For that, you need a way to think about sen­tences that con­nects an im­pres­sion like con­fus­ing to what it is in the sen­tence that con­fuses you. More im­port­ant, you have to know how to re­vise your own sen­tences when they are clear to you but won’t be to your read­ers.

有一些风格原则可以区分例句 (1a) 营造的晦涩感和例句 (1c) 营造的成熟清晰感。这些原则只关注句子的两个部分:开头(前六七个词)和结尾(后五六个词)。只要这两个部分处理得当,句子的其余部分(通常)自然就流畅自然了。但是,要运用这些原则,你必须理解五个语法术语:简单主语、完整主语、动词名词和从句。(如果你有一段时间没用过这些术语,请在继续阅读之前复习一下。)

There are a few prin­ciples of style that dis­tin­guish the feel­ing of dens­ity cre­ated by (1a) from the feel­ing of ma­ture clar­ity cre­ated by (1c). These prin­ciples fo­cus on only two parts of a sen­tence: its be­gin­ning (the first six or seven words) and its end­ing (the last five or six words). Get those parts right and the rest of the sen­tence will (usu­ally) take care of it­self. To use these prin­ciples, though, you must un­der­stand five gram­mat­ical terms: simple sub­ject, whole sub­ject, verb, noun, and clause. (If you haven’t used those terms for a while, re­view them be­fore you read on.)

这一点很重要:不要试图在撰写新句子时应用这些原则。如果在起草阶段就遵循这些原则,你可能会陷入困境。相反,应该在修改已写好的句子时,让这些原则指导你。

This is im­port­ant: don’t try to ap­ply these prin­ciples as you write new sen­tences. If you fol­low them as you draft, you may tie your­self in knots. Rather, let them guide you when you re­vise sen­tences you have already writ­ten.

15.2.2  第一原则:将主体塑造为角色

15.2.2  The First Prin­ciple: Make Sub­jects Char­ac­ters

这条基本原则可能会让你想起小学时学到的知识:每个句子都有主语和谓语。你在学校可能学过,主语是动作的“执行者”或主体。但这并不总是正确的,因为主语可以是除谓语之外的其他事物。行动者,甚至行为本身。比较以下两个句子(每个分句中的整个主语都已用下划线标出):

This first prin­ciple may re­mind you of some­thing you learned in ele­ment­ary school: every sen­tence has a sub­ject and a verb. In school you prob­ably learned that sub­jects are the “doers” or agents of an ac­tion. But that’s not al­ways true, be­cause sub­jects can be things other than doers, even ac­tions. Com­pare these two sen­tences (the whole sub­ject in each clause is un­der­lined):

2a.洛克经常重复自己的话,因为不相信语言的力量能够准确地命名事物。

2b.洛克频繁重复的原因在于他对词语命名能力的准确性缺乏信任。

2a. Locke fre­quently re­peated him­self be­cause he did not trust the power of words to name things ac­cur­ately.

2b. The reason for Locke’s fre­quent re­pe­ti­tion lies in his dis­trust of the ac­cur­acy of the nam­ing power of words.

例 (2a) 中的两个主体——洛克他自己——符合小学对主体的定义:他们是行动者。但例 (2b) 中的主体——洛克频繁重复的原因——则不符合,因为理性在这里没有真正发挥作用。真正的行动者仍然是洛克。

The two sub­jects in (2a)—Locke and he—fit that ele­ment­ary school defin­i­tion: they are doers. But the sub­ject of (2b)—The reason for Locke’s fre­quent re­pe­ti­tion—does not be­cause reason doesn’t really do any­thing here. The real doer is still Locke.

要超越这些定义,我们不仅要思考句子的语法——主语和谓语——还要思考它们所讲述的故事——关于行动者及其行为。以下是一个关于热带雨林和生物圈的故事:

To get bey­ond such defin­i­tions, we have to think not only about the gram­mar of sen­tences—their sub­jects and verbs—but also about the stor­ies they tell—about doers and their ac­tions. Here is a story about rain forests and the bio­sphere:

3a. 如果为了短期经济利益而砍伐雨林,地球生物圈可能会受到损害。

3b.为了短期经济利益而砍伐雨林可能会对地球生物圈造成损害。

3a. If rain forests are stripped to serve short-term eco­nomic in­terests, the earth’s bio­sphere may be dam­aged.

3b. The strip­ping of rain forests in the ser­vice of short-term eco­nomic in­terests could res­ult in dam­age to the earth’s bio­sphere.

在更清晰的版本(3a)中,请查看每个从句的完整主语:

In the clearer ver­sion, (3a), look at the whole sub­jects of each clause:

3a. 如果热带雨林遭到破坏地球 生物圈可能会受到损害

3a. If rain forestssub­ject are strippedverb . . . the earth’s bio­spheresub­ject may be dam­aged.verb

这些主题用几个简短具体的词语指代了故事中的主要人物:热带雨林地球生物圈。比较(3b):

Those sub­jects name the main char­ac­ters in that story in a few short, con­crete words: rain forests and the earth’s bio­sphere. Com­pare (3b):

3b.为了短期经济利益可能会对地球生物圈造成损害。

3b. The strip­ping of rain forests in the ser­vice of short-term eco­nomic in­terestssub­ject could res­ultverb in dam­age to the earth’s bio­sphere.

在 (3b) 中,简单主语 (剥离)指的不是一个具体的角色,而是一个动作;它只是构成整个主语的长抽象短语的一部分 为了短期经济利益而剥离雨林。

In (3b) the simple sub­ject (strip­ping) names not a con­crete char­ac­ter but rather an ac­tion; it is only part of the long ab­stract phrase that is the whole sub­ject: the strip­ping of rain forests in the ser­vice of short-term eco­nomic in­terests.

现在我们就能明白,虽然小学对句子主语的定义在语言学上很简单,但它却能为写作提供很好的建议。清晰写作的第一原则是:

Now we can see why that ele­ment­ary school defin­i­tion of a sen­tence’s sub­ject, while simplistic lin­guist­ic­ally, nev­er­the­less sug­gests good ad­vice about writ­ing. The first prin­ciple of clear writ­ing is this:

读者会根据句子中提及故事主要人物的程度来判断你的句子是否清晰易懂。如果句子中提及了主要人物,那么这些提及的内容就会简短、具体、明确。

Read­ers will judge your sen­tences to be clear and read­able to the de­gree that their sub­jects name the main char­ac­ters in your story. When they do, those sub­jects will be short, spe­cific, and con­crete.

15.2.3  第二原则:用动词表达动作

15.2.3  The Second Prin­ciple: Ex­press Ac­tions as Verbs

清晰写作和模糊写作的第二个区别在于作者如何表达故事中的关键动作——是用动词还是名词。请再次查看下面的句子对(2)和(3)。(表示动作的词语用粗体标出;动词表示的动作用下划线标出;名词表示的动作用双下划线标出。)

A second dif­fer­ence between clear and un­clear writ­ing lies in how writers ex­press the cru­cial ac­tions in their stor­ies—as verbs or as nouns. Look again at the pairs of sen­tences (2) and (3) be­low. (Words nam­ing ac­tions are bold­faced; ac­tions that are verbs are un­der­lined; ac­tions that are nouns are double-un­der­lined.)

2a. 洛克经常重复自己的话,因为他不相信语言的力量能够准确地命名事物。

2b. 洛克频繁重复的原因在于他词语命名能力的准确性缺乏信任。

3a. 如果为了短期经济利益而砍伐雨林,地球的生物圈可能受到损害。

3b.为了短期经济利益而砍伐雨林可能会对地球生物圈造成损害。

2a. Locke fre­quently re­peated him­self be­cause he did not trust the power of words to name things ac­cur­ately.

2b. The reason for Locke’s fre­quent re­pe­ti­tion lies in his dis­trust of the ac­cur­acy of the nam­ing power of words.

3a. If rain forests are stripped to serve short-term eco­nomic in­terests, the earth’s bio­sphere may be dam­aged.

3b. The strip­ping of rain forests in the ser­vice of short-term eco­nomic in­terests could res­ult in dam­age to the earth’s bio­sphere.

句子 (2a) 和 (3a) 比句子 (2b) 和 (3b) 更清晰,不仅因为它们的主语是人物,还因为它们的动作不是用名词而是用动词来表达。(我们将在 15.4 节讨论被动语态动词,例如are strippedbe damage

Sen­tences (2a) and (3a) are clearer than (2b) and (3b) not just be­cause their sub­jects are char­ac­ters but also be­cause their ac­tions are ex­pressed not as nouns but as verbs. (We’ll dis­cuss pass­ive verbs like are stripped and be dam­aged in 15.4.)

当你用抽象名词而非动词来表达动作时,句子中也会充斥着大量的冠词和介词。请看例句 (4b) 中所有冠词和介词(粗体部分),而例句 (4a) 中并不需要它们:

When you ex­press ac­tions not with verbs but with ab­stract nouns, you also clut­ter a sen­tence with art­icles and pre­pos­i­tions. Look at all the art­icles and pre­pos­i­tions (bold­faced) in (4b) that (4a) doesn’t need:

4a. 有了衡量情绪障碍的标准化指标,我们就可以量化患者对不同治疗的反应。

4b.情绪障碍测量指标标准化使得我们能够量化患者治疗差异的反应。

4a. Hav­ing stand­ard­ized in­dices for meas­ur­ing mood dis­orders, we can quantify how pa­tients re­spond to dif­fer­ent treat­ments.

4b. The stand­ard­iz­a­tion of in­dices for the meas­ure­ment of mood dis­orders has made pos­sible our quan­ti­fic­a­tion of pa­tient re­sponse as a func­tion of treat­ment dif­fer­ences.

句子 (4b) 增加了一个aasfor;两个s和四个of s,这都是因为四个动词变成了名词:standardize → standardization ,measure → measurement ,quantify → quantification ,respond → response 。(在该句中,一个形容词也变成了名词: different → differences

Sen­tence (4b) adds one a, as, and for; two thes, and four ofs, all be­cause four verbs were turned into nouns: stand­ard­ize stand­ard­iz­a­tion, meas­ure meas­ure­ment, quantify quan­ti­fic­a­tion, re­spond re­sponse. (In that sen­tence, an ad­ject­ive was turned into a noun as well: dif­fer­ent dif­fer­ences.)

当你把动词和形容词变成名词时,你的句子还会以另外两种方式变得混乱:

When you turn verbs and ad­ject­ives into nouns, you can tangle up your sen­tences in two more ways:

  • ▪ 你必须添加一些不如你原本可以使用的动词具体、相关性更低的动词。例如,在例句 (4b) 中,我们没有使用具体的动词“标准化”、 “测量” 、 “量化”“回应” ,而是只用了一个含义模糊的动词“制作”
  • ▪  You have to add verbs that are less spe­cific and less rel­ev­ant to your story than the verbs you could have used. In (4b), in­stead of the spe­cific verbs stand­ard­ize, meas­ure, quantify, and re­spond, we have the single vague verb made.
  • ▪ 你很可能将故事中的人物变成名词或介词宾语的修饰语,或者完全从句子中删除它们:在(4b)中,人物we变成了所有格代词our,而patients 被降级为名词response
  • ▪  You are likely to make the char­ac­ters in your story mod­i­fi­ers of nouns or ob­jects of pre­pos­i­tions or to drop them from a sen­tence al­to­gether: in (4b), the char­ac­ter we be­comes the pos­sess­ive pro­noun our, and pa­tients is de­moted to a mod­i­fier of the noun re­sponse.

以下是清晰风格的两个原则:

So here are two prin­ciples of a clear style:

  • ▪ 让你的中心人物成为主题;保持这些主题简短、具体、明确。
  • ▪  Make your cent­ral char­ac­ters sub­jects; keep those sub­jects short, con­crete, and spe­cific.
  • ▪ 用动词表达关键动作。
  • ▪  Ex­press cru­cial ac­tions in verbs.

15.2.4  诊断和修订

15.2.4  Dia­gnosis and Re­vi­sion

根据读者对句子的评判标准,我们可以提供一些方法来诊断和修改你的句子。

Given how read­ers judge sen­tences, we can of­fer ways to dia­gnose and re­vise yours.

诊断方法:

To dia­gnose:

  1. 1. 标出每个分句(无论是主句还是从句)的前六七个词,并提问:
    • ▪ 你能用这些高亮显示的词语表达出每个分句的全部主语,或者至少表达出它的简单主语吗?
    • 如果是这样,这些简单的主题是具体人物,而不是抽象概念吗?
  2. 1. High­light the first six or seven words of every clause, whether main or sub­or­din­ate, and ask:
    • ▪  Do you get through each clause’s whole sub­ject, or at least to its simple sub­ject, in those high­lighted words?
    • ▪  If so, are those simple sub­jects con­crete char­ac­ters, not ab­strac­tions?
  3. 2. 看看你的动词:它们是否指代具体而具体的动作(如“剥离”“损坏”) ,而不是模糊或一般的动作(如上文 [ 3b] 中的“导致”或[4b]中的“制造”)?
  4. 2. Look at your verbs: Do they name con­crete and spe­cific ac­tions (like strip or dam­age), not vague or gen­eral ones (like res­ult in [3b] or made in [4b] above)?

如果这句话未能通过上述任何一项测试,你可能需要修改。

If the sen­tence fails either of these tests, you should prob­ably re­vise.

修改:

To re­vise:

  1. 1. 找到你想讲述故事的人物。如果找不到,那就自己创造他们。
  2. 1. Find the char­ac­ters you want to tell a story about. If you can’t, in­vent them.
  3. 2. 找出这些角色正在做什么。如果他们的动作是用名词表达的,就把这些名词改成动词。
  4. 2. Find what those char­ac­ters are do­ing. If their ac­tions are ex­pressed as nouns, change those nouns into verbs.
  5. 3. 创建以主要人物为主语,以他们的动作为动词的从句。
  6. 3. Cre­ate clauses with your main char­ac­ters as sub­jects and their ac­tions as verbs.

您可能需要改写句子来表达因果关系,例如使用“如果 X,则 Y”“X 因为 Y”、“虽然 X,Y ”、“当 X 时,则 Y ”等等。

You may have to re­cast your sen­tence to ex­press cause and ef­fect by us­ing some ver­sion of If X, then Y; X be­cause Y; Al­though X, Y; When X, then Y; and so on.

这是将晦涩难懂的文字修改得更清晰易懂的简单方法。下面是一个更细致的方法。

That’s the simple ver­sion of re­vis­ing dense prose into some­thing clearer. Here is a more nu­anced one.

15.2.5  谁或什么可以成为角色?

15.2.5  Who or What Can Be a Char­ac­ter?

你或许会好奇,为什么我们把雨林地球生物圈称为“角色”,而我们通常认为角色指的是有血有肉的人。就我们的目的而言,“角色”指的是任何可以讲述故事的事物,包括雨林,甚至像思维。在你的领域,你可能需要讲述关于人口变化、社会特权、等温线或基因库的故事。

You may have wondered why we called rain forests and the earth’s bio­sphere “char­ac­ters” when we usu­ally think of char­ac­ters as flesh-and-blood people. For our pur­poses, a char­ac­ter is any­thing that you can tell a story about, in­clud­ing things like rain forests and even ab­strac­tions like thought dis­orders. In your field, you may have to tell a story about demo­graphic changes, so­cial priv­ilege, iso­therms, or gene pools.

有时你会面临选择:你可以讲述真实人物或虚拟人物的故事,也可以讲述与他们相关的抽象概念的故事。例如,一篇经济学论文可以讲述消费者美联储的故事,或者讲述储蓄与货币政策的故事。请注意,你仍然可以将这些抽象概念视为人物,方法是让它们成为动作动词(粗体)的主语(带下划线):

Some­times you have a choice: you can tell a story about real or vir­tual people or about the ab­strac­tions as­so­ci­ated with them. A pa­per in eco­nom­ics, for ex­ample, might tell a story about con­sumers and the Fed­eral Re­serve or about sav­ings and mon­et­ary policy. Note that you can still treat those ab­strac­tions as char­ac­ters by mak­ing them the sub­jects (un­der­lined) of ac­tion verbs (bold­face):

5a. 当消费者 储蓄增加时,美联储 会改变其货币政策,以影响银行的放贷 方式。

5b. 当消费者储蓄 增加时,美联储的货币政策 会进行调整,以影响银行的贷款行为。

5a. When con­sumers save more, the Fed­eral Re­serve changes its mon­et­ary policy to in­flu­ence how banks lend money.

5b. When con­sumer sav­ings rise, Fed­eral Re­serve mon­et­ary policy ad­apts to in­flu­ence bank lend­ing prac­tices.

在其他条件相同的情况下,读者更喜欢角色至少是具体的事物,或者更好的是,有血有肉的人。

All things be­ing equal, read­ers prefer char­ac­ters to be at least con­crete things or, bet­ter, flesh-and-blood people.

然而,专家们喜欢讲述关于抽象概念的故事(粗体字;主题用下划线标出)。

Ex­perts, how­ever, like to tell stor­ies about ab­strac­tions (bold­faced; sub­jects are un­der­lined).

6.用于测量 情绪有助于我们量化患者对不同治疗的。这些测量结果 表明,对于大多数患者而言,需要长期 住院治疗的疗效并不优于门诊治疗。

6. Stand­ard­ized in­dices to meas­ure mood dis­orders help us quantify how pa­tients re­spond to dif­fer­ent treat­ments. These meas­ure­ments sug­gest that treat­ments re­quir­ing long-term hos­pit­al­iz­a­tion are no more ef­fect­ive than out­pa­tient care for most pa­tients.

第二句中的抽象名词——测量、治疗、住院、护理——指的是医生和概念病人。考虑到这些读者,作者无需修改这些名词。

The ab­stract nouns in the second sen­tence—meas­ure­ments, treat­ments, hos­pit­al­iz­a­tion, care—refer to con­cepts as fa­mil­iar to its in­ten­ded read­ers as doc­tors and pa­tients. Given those read­ers, the writer would not need to re­vise them.

从某种意义上说,这个例子削弱了我们关于避免使用动词构成的名词的建议,因为现在,你不再需要将每个抽象名词都改成动词,而是需要选择哪些名词需要修改,哪些名词需要修改。保留名词形式。例如,(6) 式第二句中的抽象名词与 (7a) 式中的前三个抽象名词相同:

In a way, that ex­ample un­der­cuts our ad­vice about avoid­ing nouns made out of verbs be­cause now, in­stead of re­vis­ing every ab­stract noun into a verb, you have to choose which ones to change and which ones to leave as nouns. For ex­ample, the ab­stract nouns in the second sen­tence of (6) are the same as the first three in (7a):

7a.患者住院而未得到适当治疗会导致结果测量不可靠。

7a. The hos­pit­al­iz­a­tion of pa­tients without ap­pro­pri­ate treat­ment res­ults in the un­re­li­able meas­ure­ment of out­comes.

如果我们把那些抽象名词改成动词,这句话就会变得更好:

But we would im­prove that sen­tence if we re­vised those ab­stract nouns into verbs:

7b. 当患者住院但未得到适当治疗时,我们无法可靠地衡量治疗结果。

7b. We can­not meas­ure out­comes re­li­ably when pa­tients are hos­pit­al­ized but not treated ap­pro­pri­ately.

因此,我们在这里提供的不是写作的铁律,而是一个诊断和修改的原则,你必须谨慎地运用它。

So what we of­fer here is no iron rule of writ­ing, but rather a prin­ciple of dia­gnosis and re­vi­sion that you must ap­ply ju­di­ciously.

15.2.6  避免过度抽象

15.2.6  Avoid­ing Ex­cess­ive Ab­strac­tion

当你把抽象名词作为句子的主要角色和主题,然后在它们周围添加更多抽象概念时,就会给读者造成理解困难。以下这段文字涉及两个抽象概念:民主和制度化。尽管如此,这段文字对于目标读者来说仍然足够清晰,因为这两个主要角色是主题,而且避免了使用额外的抽象概念(主要角色用斜体字表示;整个主题用下划线表示;动词用粗体字表示):

You cre­ate dif­fi­culties for read­ers when you make ab­stract nouns the main char­ac­ters and sub­jects of your sen­tences, then sprinkle more ab­strac­tions around them. Here is a pas­sage about two ab­stract char­ac­ters, demo­cra­cies and in­sti­tu­tion­al­iz­a­tion. Still, the pas­sage is still clear enough for its in­ten­ded read­ers be­cause those main char­ac­ters are sub­jects and be­cause ad­di­tional ab­strac­tions are avoided (main char­ac­ters are it­alicized; whole sub­jects are un­der­lined; verbs are bold­faced):

8a.我们 预期历史更悠久的 民主政体 将受益于政治领域更高的制度化程度。尽管政治制度化难以界定,但普遍认为,一个制度完善的政治体中的程序具备以下特点:功能分化、规范化(因而可预测)、专业化(包括任人唯贤的招聘)、理性化(可解释、基于规则且非任意性),并蕴含价值。大多数历史悠久的民主政体都符合这一描述

8a. We ex­pect that older demo­cra­cies will be­ne­fit from greater in­sti­tu­tion­al­iz­a­tion in the polit­ical sphere. Al­though polit­ical in­sti­tu­tion­al­iz­a­tion is dif­fi­cult to define, there seems to be gen­eral con­sensus that pro­ced­ures in a well-in­sti­tu­tion­al­ized polity are func­tion­ally dif­fer­en­ti­ated, reg­u­lar­ized (and hence pre­dict­able), pro­fes­sion­al­ized (in­clud­ing mer­ito­cratic meth­ods of re­cruit­ment and pro­mo­tion), ra­tion­al­ized (ex­plic­able, rule based, and non-ar­bit­rary), and in­fused with value. Most long-stand­ing demo­cra­cies fit this de­scrip­tion.

注意,当主要人物脱离主题,关键抽象概念“制度化”被其他抽象名词包围时,故事变得不那么清晰了(主要人物用斜体字表示;整个主题用下划线表示;其他抽象概念用粗体字表示):

Note how the story be­comes less clear when those main char­ac­ters are dis­placed from sub­jects and the key ab­strac­tion in­sti­tu­tion­al­iz­a­tion is sur­roun­ded by other ab­stract nouns (main char­ac­ters are it­alicized; whole sub­jects are un­der­lined; the ad­di­tional ab­strac­tions are bold­faced):

8b.我们 预期,政治领域的制度化程度越高 ,对历史悠久的民主国家越有利。尽管政治制度化的定义较为复杂,但普遍认为,功能分化、规范化(因而可预测)、专业化(包括择优录用和晋升机制)、合理化(可解释、基于规则且非任意性)以及价值注入,都是制度完善的政治体程序特征。这一描述适用于大多数历史悠久的民主国家。

8b. Our ex­pect­a­tion is that greater in­sti­tu­tion­al­iz­a­tion in the polit­ical sphere will be of be­ne­fit to older demo­cra­cies. Al­though defin­i­tion of polit­ical in­sti­tu­tion­al­iz­a­tion is dif­fi­cult, there seems to be gen­eral con­sensus that func­tional dif­fer­en­ti­ation, reg­u­lar­iz­a­tion (and hence pre­dict­able), pro­fes­sion­al­iz­a­tion (in­clud­ing mer­ito­cratic meth­ods of re­cruit­ment and pro­mo­tion), ra­tion­al­iz­a­tion (ex­plic­able, rule based, and non-ar­bit­rary), and the in­fu­sion of value are char­ac­ter­istic of pro­ced­ures in a well-in­sti­tu­tion­al­ized polity. This de­scrip­tion is a fit for most long-stand­ing demo­cra­cies.

我们并不是建议你把所有抽象名词都变成动词。这个关于民主和制度化的故事,如果换成讲述像公民或你这样的有血有肉的角色,很难在不改变原意的情况下进行改编。(如果你不信,不妨试试。)但如果你的主角抽象概念,那就尽量避免使用其他不必要的概念。区分哪些是必要的,哪些是不必要的,需要通过阅读、实践和批判性思考才能掌握。

We’re not sug­gest­ing that you change every ab­stract noun into a verb. This story about demo­cra­cies and in­sti­tu­tion­al­iz­a­tion would be dif­fi­cult to trans­pose into one about flesh-and-blood char­ac­ters like cit­izens or you without chan­ging its mean­ing. (If you don’t be­lieve us, give it a try.) But if your main char­ac­ters are ab­strac­tions, avoid oth­ers you don’t need. The skill of know­ing those you need from those you don’t comes with read­ing, prac­tice, and cri­ti­cism.

15.2.7  塑造主角

15.2.7  Cre­at­ing Main Char­ac­ters

既然我们已经对这个原则做了一次限定,现在我们再把它复杂化。大多数故事都有好几个角色,你可以通过反复使用其中任何一个角色作为主题,把它变成主角。以关于热带雨林的句子为例:

Hav­ing qual­i­fied our prin­ciple once, we com­plic­ate it again. Most stor­ies have sev­eral char­ac­ters, any one of which you can turn into a main char­ac­ter by us­ing it re­peatedly as a sub­ject. Take the sen­tence about rain forests:

9. 如果为了短期经济利益而砍伐雨林,地球的生物圈可能会受到破坏。

9. If rain forests are stripped to serve short-term eco­nomic in­terests, the earth’s bio­sphere may be dam­aged.

这句话讲述了一个故事,暗示了其他人物,但没有具体说明是谁:是谁在砍伐森林?

That sen­tence tells a story that im­plies other char­ac­ters but does not spe­cify them: Who is strip­ping the forests?

9a. 如果伐木工为了短期经济利益而砍伐雨林,他们可能会破坏地球的生物圈。

9b. 如果开发商为了短期经济利益而砍伐雨林,他们可能会破坏地球的生物圈。

9c. 如果巴西为了短期经济利益而砍伐雨林,可能会破坏地球的生物圈。

9a. If log­gers strip rain forests to serve short-term eco­nomic in­terests, they may dam­age the earth’s bio­sphere.

9b. If de­velopers strip rain forests to serve short-term eco­nomic in­terests, they may dam­age the earth’s bio­sphere.

9c. If Brazil strips its rain forests to serve short-term eco­nomic in­terests, it may dam­age the earth’s bio­sphere.

哪句话最好?这取决于你想让读者关注哪个角色。修改句子时,尽量把人物放在主语,动作放在谓语。但要讲好故事,而好的故事并不总是最具体的故事。

Which sen­tence is best? It de­pends on which char­ac­ter you want your read­ers to fo­cus on. As you re­vise sen­tences, put char­ac­ters in sub­jects and ac­tions in verbs, when you can. But tell the right story, which is not al­ways the most con­crete one.

15.3  第三原则:先有旧后有新

15.3  A Third Prin­ciple: Old be­fore New

阅读和修改还有第三个原则,甚至比前两个原则更为重要。幸运的是,这三个原则彼此关联。比较以下(a)和(b)两种版本。哪一种看起来更清晰?为什么?(提示:观察句首,这次不仅要看以人物为主语,还要看句首表达的是已知信息还是新的、意料之外的信息。)

There is a third prin­ciple of read­ing and re­vis­ing even more im­port­ant than the first two. For­tu­nately, all three prin­ciples are re­lated. Com­pare the (a) and (b) ver­sions in the fol­low­ing. Which seems clearer? Why? (Hint: Look at the be­gin­nings of sen­tences, this time not just for char­ac­ters as sub­jects but also for whether those be­gin­nings ex­press in­form­a­tion that is fa­mil­iar or in­form­a­tion that is new and there­fore un­ex­pec­ted.)

10a. 由于洛克不信任词语的命名能力,他经常重复自己的观点。十七世纪的语言理论,尤其是威尔金斯提出的通用语言方案(该方案认为需要为无数个意义创造无数个符号),都以这种命名能力为中心。语言研究的一个新时代,即关注意义与指称之间模糊不清的关系,正是从洛克的这种不信任开始的。

10b. 洛克经常重复自己的观点,因为他不信任词语的命名能力。这种命名能力在十七世纪的语言理论中占据核心地位,尤其是在威尔金斯提出的通用语言方案中,该方案认为需要为无数个意义创造无数个符号。洛克的这种不信任开启了语言研究的新纪元,这一纪元着重探讨意义与指称之间模糊不清的关系。

10a. Be­cause the nam­ing power of words was dis­trus­ted by Locke, he re­peated him­self of­ten. Sev­en­teenth-cen­tury the­or­ies of lan­guage, es­pe­cially Wilkins’s scheme for a uni­ver­sal lan­guage in­volving the cre­ation of count­less sym­bols for count­less mean­ings, had centered on this nam­ing power. A new era in the study of lan­guage that fo­cused on the am­bigu­ous re­la­tion­ship between sense and ref­er­ence be­gins with Locke’s dis­trust.

10b. Locke of­ten re­peated him­self be­cause he dis­trus­ted the nam­ing power of words. This nam­ing power had been cent­ral to sev­en­teenth-cen­tury the­or­ies of lan­guage, es­pe­cially Wilkins’s scheme for a uni­ver­sal lan­guage in­volving the cre­ation of count­less sym­bols for count­less mean­ings. Locke’s dis­trust began a new era in the study of lan­guage, one that fo­cused on the am­bigu­ous re­la­tion­ship between sense and ref­er­ence.

大多数读者更喜欢 (10b),他们不仅认为 (10a)过于晦涩冗长,而且还认为它支离破碎;它不够流畅——这些印象派的词语再次描述的不是文章本身,而是我们对它的感受。

Most read­ers prefer (10b), say­ing not just that (10a) is too dense or in­flated, but that it’s also dis­join­ted; it doesn’t flow—im­pres­sion­istic words that again de­scribe not the pas­sage but how we feel about it.

如果我们运用“前六七个词”测试,就能解释这些印象。在不连贯的版本(10a)中,第一句之后的两句以读者无法预测的信息开头:

We can ex­plain those im­pres­sions if we ap­ply the “first six or seven words” test. In the dis­join­ted ver­sion, (10a), the two sen­tences after the first one be­gin with in­form­a­tion read­ers can­not pre­dict:

十七世纪语言理论

语言研究的新时代

Sev­en­teenth-cen­tury the­or­ies of lan­guage

A new era in the study of lan­guage

因此,读者很难看出整篇文章的“主题”。

For that reason, read­ers can’t eas­ily see the “topic” of the whole pas­sage.

相反,在(10b)中,除第一句外,每一句话都以提及读者从前面句子中回忆起的想法的词语开头:

In (10b), in con­trast, each sen­tence after the first opens with words re­fer­ring to ideas that read­ers re­call from pre­vi­ous sen­tences:

这种命名权[重复前一句中的短语]

洛克的不信任[一个有用的抽象名词,与第一句话中的动词相呼应]

This nam­ing power [a phrase re­peated from the pre­vi­ous sen­tence]

Locke’s dis­trust [a use­ful ab­stract noun that echoes a verb from the first sen­tence]

这样读者就能看出所有这些句子是如何与文章主题相关的。

So read­ers can see how all of those sen­tences re­late to the pas­sage’s topic.

当句子以读者熟悉的人物或概念开头时,读者最容易理解故事,这些人物或概念要么之前已经提到过,要么来自上下文。从这一阅读原则出发,我们可以推导出诊断和修改的步骤。

Read­ers fol­low a story most eas­ily when sen­tences be­gin with char­ac­ters or ideas that are fa­mil­iar to them either be­cause they were already men­tioned or be­cause they come from the con­text. From this prin­ciple of read­ing, we can in­fer a pro­ced­ure for dia­gnosis and re­vi­sion.

诊断方法:

To dia­gnose:

  1. 1. 标出每句话的前六七个字。
  2. 1. High­light the first six or seven words of every sen­tence.
  3. 2. 你是否突出显示了读者会觉得熟悉且容易理解的词语(通常是以前用过的词语)?
  4. 2. Have you high­lighted words that your read­ers will find fa­mil­iar and easy to un­der­stand (usu­ally words used be­fore)?
  5. 3. 如果不行,请修改。
  6. 3. If not, re­vise.

修改:

To re­vise:

  1. 1. 让前六七个字指代熟悉的信息,通常是你以前提到过的东西(通常是你的主要人物或想法)。
  2. 1. Make the first six or seven words refer to fa­mil­iar in­form­a­tion, usu­ally some­thing you have men­tioned be­fore (typ­ic­ally your main char­ac­ters or ideas).
  3. 2. 将读者意想不到的信息放在句末,这样读者就更难理解。
  4. 2. Put at the ends of sen­tences in­form­a­tion that your read­ers will find un­pre­dict­able and there­fore harder to un­der­stand.

这条“旧先于新”的原则与关于人物和主题的原则相辅相成,但是,如果你必须在以人物或熟悉的信息开头写句子之间做出选择,那么一定要选择“旧先于新”的原则

This old-be­fore-new prin­ciple hap­pily co­oper­ates with the one about char­ac­ters and sub­jects, but should you ever have to choose between be­gin­ning a sen­tence with a char­ac­ter or with fa­mil­iar in­form­a­tion, al­ways choose the prin­ciple of old be­fore new.

不幸的是,应用这一原则可能很困难,因为你对自己想法的熟悉程度可能会使你无法区分什么。既要关注读者熟悉的内容,也要关注哪些内容是新的。因此,请检查每个句子,确保开头的信息与前面的内容有所关联。如果没有关联,请修改。

Un­for­tu­nately, ap­ply­ing this prin­ciple can be dif­fi­cult be­cause your fa­mili­ar­ity with your own ideas may keep you from dis­tin­guish­ing what is fa­mil­iar and what is new for your read­ers. So check each sen­tence to be sure the in­form­a­tion at its be­gin­ning is an­ti­cip­ated by some­thing that came be­fore. If it isn’t, re­vise.

15.4  主动语态和被动语态的选择

15.4  Choos­ing between the Act­ive and Pass­ive Voice

您可能已经注意到,在我们的例子中,一些比较清晰的句子使用了被动语态(即过去分词前加be动词),这似乎与英语老师通常建议避免使用被动语态相矛盾。如果机械地遵循这条建议,反而会使您的句子更加晦涩难懂。与其纠结于主动语态和被动语态,不如问自己一个更简单的问题:您的句子是否以熟悉的信息开头,最好是包含主要人物?如果您在句子的主语中使用熟悉的信息,那么您就能正确地使用主动语态和被动语态。

You may have noted that in our ex­amples, some of the clearer sen­tences have verbs in the pass­ive voice (that is, a past par­ti­ciple pre­ceded by a form of to be), which seems to con­tra­dict com­mon ad­vice from Eng­lish teach­ers to avoid it. Fol­lowed mech­an­ic­ally, that ad­vice will make your sen­tences less clear. Rather than wor­ry­ing about act­ive and pass­ive, ask a sim­pler ques­tion: Do your sen­tences be­gin with fa­mil­iar in­form­a­tion and prefer­ably a main char­ac­ter? If you put fa­mil­iar in­form­a­tion in your sub­jects, you will use the act­ive and pass­ive prop­erly.

例如,这两段文字哪一段读起来更流畅?

For ex­ample, which of these two pas­sages “flows” more eas­ily?

11a. 我们的空气质量乃至全球气候都依赖于亚洲、非洲和南美洲健康的热带雨林。然而,全球范围内对农业用地和建筑用木材的需求不断增长,正威胁着这些森林的生存。

11b. 我们的空气质量乃至全球气候都依赖于亚洲、非洲和南美洲健康的雨林。然而,由于全球对农业用地和建筑用木材的需求不断增长,这些雨林正面临被破坏的威胁。

11a. The qual­ity of our air and even the cli­mate of the world de­pend on healthy rain forests in Asia, Africa, and South Amer­ica. But the in­creas­ing de­mand for more land for ag­ri­cul­tural use and for wood products for con­struc­tion world­wide now threatens these forests with de­struc­tion.

11b. The qual­ity of our air and even the cli­mate of the world de­pend on healthy rain forests in Asia, Africa, and South Amer­ica. But these rain forests are now threatened with de­struc­tion by the in­creas­ing de­mand for more land for ag­ri­cul­tural use and for wood products used in con­struc­tion world­wide.

大多数读者认为(11b)更流畅易读。为什么呢?请注意,(11b)第二句的开头呼应了第一句结尾介绍的人物:

Most read­ers think (11b) flows more eas­ily. Why? Note that the be­gin­ning of the second sen­tence in (11b) picks up on the char­ac­ter in­tro­duced at the end of the first sen­tence:

11b. ……亚洲、非洲和南美洲的热带雨林。但是这些热带雨林 ……

11b. . . . rain forests in Asia, Africa, and South Amer­ica. But these rain forests . . .

另一方面,(11a) 的第二句开头提供的信息似乎与第一句话无关:

The second sen­tence of (11a), on the other hand, opens with in­form­a­tion seem­ingly un­con­nec­ted to the first sen­tence:

11a. ……亚洲、非洲和南美洲的热带雨林。但对更多土地的需求日益增长……

11a. . . . rain forests in Asia, Africa, and South Amer­ica. But the in­creas­ing de­mand for more land . . .

换句话说,被动语态使我们能够将较早出现的、更熟悉的信息从句末移到句首,这才是它应该在的位置。如果我们该用被动语态的时候不用,句子就会显得不够流畅。

In other words, the pass­ive al­lowed us to move the older, more fa­mil­iar in­form­a­tion from the end of the sen­tence to the be­gin­ning, where it be­longs. If we don’t use the pass­ive when we should, our sen­tences won’t flow as well as they could.

在英语课堂上,学生有时会被告知应该只使用主动语态,但在工程学、自然科学和一些社会科学领域,他们听到的却是相反的说法。这些领域的教师常常要求使用被动语态,认为这样能使文章更客观。然而,这些建议大多同样具有误导性。请比较被动语态(12a)和主动语态(12b):

In Eng­lish classes, stu­dents are some­times told that they should use only act­ive verbs, but they hear the op­pos­ite in en­gin­eer­ing, the nat­ural sci­ences, and some so­cial sci­ences. Teach­ers in those fields of­ten de­mand the pass­ive, think­ing that it makes writ­ing more ob­ject­ive. Most of that ad­vice is equally mis­lead­ing. Com­pare the pass­ive (12a) with the act­ive (12b):

12a.以十分之一秒为间隔测量动。

12b.我们以十分之一秒的间隔 测量眼动。

12a. Eye move­ments were meas­ured at tenth-of-second in­ter­vals.

12b. We meas­ured eye move­ments at tenth-of-second in­ter­vals.

这两句话提​​供的信息同样客观,但叙述方式却截然不同:一句是关于眼球运动的,另一句是关于测量眼球运动的人,而这个人恰好也是作者本人。第一句本应更“客观”,因为它忽略了这个人,只关注眼球运动本身。但仅仅避免使用“我”“我们”并不

These sen­tences of­fer equally ob­ject­ive in­form­a­tion, but their stor­ies dif­fer: one is about eye move­ments, the other about a per­son meas­ur­ing them, who hap­pens also to be the au­thor. The first is sup­posed to be more “ob­ject­ive” be­cause it ig­nores the per­son and fo­cuses on the move­ments. But just avoid­ing I or we doesn’t make writ­ing more “ob­ject­ive.” It simply changes the story.

事实上,被动语态的问题更为复杂。当科学家用被动语态描述过程时,他们暗示任何人都可以重复这些过程。在这种情况下,使用被动语态是正确的,因为任何想要重复这项研究的人都必须测量眼动。

In fact, the is­sue of the pass­ive is still more com­plic­ated. When sci­ent­ists use the pass­ive to de­scribe pro­cesses, they im­ply that those pro­cesses can be re­peated by any­one. In this case, the pass­ive is the right choice be­cause any­one who wanted to re­peat the re­search would have to meas­ure eye move­ments.

另一方面,请考虑以下两句话:

On the other hand, con­sider this pair of sen­tences:

13a.可以 得出结论,这些差异是由汤姆森效应造成的。

13b.我们 得出结论,这些差异是由汤姆森效应造成的。

13a. It can be con­cluded that the dif­fer­ences res­ult from the Thoma­son ef­fect.

13b. We con­clude that the dif­fer­ences res­ult from the Thoma­son ef­fect.

例句 (13b) 中的主动动词“conclude”及其第一人称主语“we 不仅在科学领域很常见,而且也十分恰当。区别何在?在于动词所指代的动作类型。当作者提及只有他们自己(作为作者和研究者)才能执行的动作时,使用主动动词搭配第一人称主语是恰当的——这不仅包括修辞性的动作,例如“suggest” 、 “conclude”“agerage”“show” ,也包括实际行动。他们作为科学家所获得的荣誉,例如设计实验、解决问题或证明结果。每个人都可以进行测量,但只有作者/研究人员才有权宣称他们的研究意味着什么。

The act­ive verb in (13b), con­clude, and its first-per­son sub­ject, we, are not only com­mon in the sci­ences, but ap­pro­pri­ate. The dif­fer­ence? It has to do with the kind of ac­tion the verb names. First-per­son sub­jects with act­ive verbs are ap­pro­pri­ate when au­thors refer to ac­tions that only they, as writers and re­search­ers, can per­form—not only rhet­or­ical ac­tions, such as sug­gest, con­clude, ar­gue, or show, but also ac­tions for which they get credit as sci­ent­ists, such as design ex­per­i­ments, solve prob­lems, or prove res­ults. Every­one can meas­ure, but only au­thors/re­search­ers are en­titled to claim what their re­search means.

科学家通常在期刊文章的开头和结尾使用第一人称和主动语态来描述他们如何发现问题和解决问题。而在文章中间,当他们描述任何人都可以执行的过程时,则通常使用被动语态。

Sci­ent­ists typ­ic­ally use the first per­son and act­ive verbs at the be­gin­ning of journal art­icles, where they de­scribe how they dis­covered their prob­lem and at the end where they de­scribe how they solved it. In between, when they de­scribe pro­cesses that any­one can per­form, they reg­u­larly use the pass­ive.

15.5  最后一条原则:复杂性最后

15.5  A Fi­nal Prin­ciple: Com­plex­ity Last

我们已经重点讨论了从句的开头。现在我们来看看从句的结尾。正如读者更喜欢先看到旧信息再看到新信息一样,他们也更喜欢先看到简单信息再看到复杂信息。这一原则在以下三种情况下尤为重要:

We have fo­cused on how clauses be­gin. Now we look at how they end. Just as read­ers prefer old in­form­a­tion to come be­fore new in­form­a­tion, so they prefer simple in­form­a­tion to come be­fore com­plex in­form­a­tion. This prin­ciple is par­tic­u­larly im­port­ant in three con­texts:

  • ▪ 当你引入一个新的技术术语时
  • ▪  when you in­tro­duce a new tech­nical term
  • ▪ 当你呈现一段冗长而复杂的信息时
  • ▪  when you present a unit of in­form­a­tion that is long and com­plex
  • ▪ 当你提出一个你打算在后续内容中展开阐述的概念时
  • ▪  when you in­tro­duce a concept that you in­tend to de­velop in what fol­lows

通常,当你传递新的、复杂的信息时,你希望读者能够集中注意力。幸运的是,从句的结尾本身就是一个强调的位置,所以把你的新信息放在那里就能起到突出作用。

Usu­ally, when you de­liver new, com­plex in­form­a­tion, you want read­ers to fo­cus on it. Luck­ily, the end of a clause is a nat­ural po­s­i­tion of stress, so put­ting your new, com­plex in­form­a­tion there will em­phas­ize it.

15.5.1  技术术语介绍

15.5.1  In­tro­du­cing Tech­nical Terms

当你在句子中引入读者不熟悉的专业术语时,尽量让这些术语出现在句末几个词中。请比较以下两个句子:

When you in­tro­duce tech­nical terms that are new to your read­ers, con­struct your sen­tences so that those terms ap­pear in the last few words. Com­pare these two:

14a. 单胺假说在过去三十多年里一直是抑郁症的主要生物学解释。根据该假说,多巴胺、肾上腺素、去甲肾上腺素和血清素等单胺类神经递质的缺乏与抑郁症相关。不同类型的抗抑郁药以不同的方式调节神经突触中单胺类神经递质的浓度。

14b. 三十多年来,单胺假说一直是抑郁症的主要生物学解释。根据这一假说,抑郁症与被称为单胺类神经递质的物质缺乏有关,这些单胺类物质包括多巴胺、肾上腺素、去甲肾上腺素和血清素。不同类型的抗抑郁药通过不同的机制来调节神经突触中单胺类物质的浓度。

14a. The monoam­ine hy­po­thesis has been the lead­ing bio­lo­gical ac­count of de­pres­sion for over three dec­ades. Ac­cord­ing to this hy­po­thesis, de­fi­cits in monoam­ines in­clud­ing dopam­ine, epi­neph­rine, nore­pineph­rine, and sero­tonin are as­so­ci­ated with de­pres­sion. Monoam­ine con­cen­tra­tions in neural syn­apses are reg­u­lated in dif­fer­ent ways by dif­fer­ent types of an­ti­de­press­ants.

14b. For over three dec­ades, the lead­ing bio­lo­gical ac­count of de­pres­sion has been the monoam­ine hy­po­thesis. Ac­cord­ing to this hy­po­thesis, de­pres­sion is as­so­ci­ated with de­fi­cits in neur­o­trans­mit­ters called monoam­ines, in­clud­ing dopam­ine, epi­neph­rine, nore­pineph­rine, and sero­tonin. Dif­fer­ent types of an­ti­de­press­ants work in dif­fer­ent ways to reg­u­late con­cen­tra­tions of monoam­ines in neural syn­apses.

在例句 (14a) 中,所有听起来很专业的术语都出现在句首;在例句 (14b) 中,这些术语则出现在句末。大多数读者觉得例句 (14b) 更容易理解。

In (14a) all the tech­nical-sound­ing terms ap­pear early in the sen­tences; in (14b) those terms ap­pear at the end of the sen­tences. Most read­ers find (14b) easier to un­der­stand.

15.5.2  引入复杂信息

15.5.2  In­tro­du­cing Com­plex In­form­a­tion

把需要长短语或从句表达的复杂概念放在句末,切勿放在句首。再次比较 (11a) 和 (11b):

Put com­plex bundles of ideas that re­quire long phrases or clauses at the end of a sen­tence, never at the be­gin­ning. Com­pare (11a) and (11b) again:

11a. 我们的空气质量乃至全球气候都依赖于亚洲、非洲和南美洲健康的热带雨林。然而,全球范围内对农业用地和建筑用木材的需求不断增长,正威胁着这些森林的生存。

11b. 我们的空气质量乃至全球气候都依赖于亚洲、非洲和南美洲健康的雨林。然而,由于全球对农业用地和建筑用木材的需求不断增长,这些雨林正面临被破坏的威胁。

11a. The qual­ity of our air and even the cli­mate of the world de­pend on healthy rain forests in Asia, Africa, and South Amer­ica. But the in­creas­ing de­mand for more land for ag­ri­cul­tural use and for wood products for con­struc­tion world­wide now threatens these forests with de­struc­tion.

11b. The qual­ity of our air and even the cli­mate of the world de­pend on healthy rain forests in Asia, Africa, and South Amer­ica. But these rain forests are now threatened with de­struc­tion by the in­creas­ing de­mand for more land for ag­ri­cul­tural use and for wood products used in con­struc­tion world­wide.

在例 (11a) 中,第二句以冗长复杂的信息单元开头,这个主语长达十六个词。相比之下,例 (11b) 中第二句的主语“这些雨林”则简短易懂,这同样是因为使用了被动语态(are…threating),使得我们可以将简短易懂的信息放在开头,而将冗长复杂的部分放在结尾。

In (11a) the second sen­tence be­gins with a long, com­plex unit of in­form­a­tion, a sub­ject that runs on for six­teen words. In con­trast, the sub­ject of the second sen­tence in (11b), these rain forests, is short, simple, and easy to read, again be­cause the pass­ive verb (are . . . threatened) lets us put the short and fa­mil­iar in­form­a­tion at the be­gin­ning and the long and com­plex part at the end.

15.5.3  引言

15.5.3  In­tro­du­cing What Fol­lows

段落开头时,将段落其余部分出现的关键术语放在第一句或第二句的末尾。以下哪句话最适合引出接下来的段落内容?

When you start a para­graph, put the key terms that ap­pear in the rest of the para­graph at the end of the first or second sen­tence. Which of these two sen­tences would best in­tro­duce the rest of the para­graph that fol­lows?

15a. 政治形势发生了变化,因为在彼得大帝之后,罗曼诺夫王朝八位君主中有七位都饱受王位继承之争的困扰。

15b. 政治形势发生了变化,因为在彼得大帝之后,罗曼诺夫王朝的八个统治时期中有七个时期都因王位继承争议而陷入动荡。

问题始于1722年,当时彼得大帝颁布了一项继承法,废除了世袭原则,要求君主指定继承人。但由于包括彼得在内的许多沙皇在指定继承人之前就去世了,那些渴望统治的人并没有获得任命的权力,因此他们的继承权经常受到下级贵族的质疑。即使继承人最终被指定,也依然动荡不安。

15a. The polit­ical situ­ation changed be­cause after Peter the Great, dis­putes over suc­ces­sion to the throne plagued seven of the eight reigns of the Ro­manov line.

15b. The polit­ical situ­ation changed be­cause after Peter the Great, seven of the eight reigns of the Ro­manov line were plagued by tur­moil over dis­puted suc­ces­sion to the throne.

The prob­lems began in 1722, when a law of suc­ces­sion passed by Peter the Great ter­min­ated the prin­ciple of hered­ity and re­quired the sov­er­eign to ap­point a suc­cessor. But be­cause many tsars, in­clud­ing Peter, died be­fore they named suc­cessors, those who as­pired to rule had no au­thor­ity by ap­point­ment, and so their suc­ces­sion was of­ten dis­puted by lower-level ar­is­to­crats. There was tur­moil even when suc­cessors were ap­poin­ted.

大多数读者认为 (15b) 与文章其他部分联系更紧密,因为其结尾附近的一个词(“succession”)在下一句的开头附近重复出现。相比之下,(15a) 的最后几个词似乎与后面的内容无关(当然,在其他语境下,它们可能至关重要)。

Most read­ers feel that (15b) is more closely con­nec­ted to the rest of the pas­sage be­cause a word near its end (“suc­ces­sion”) is re­peated near the be­gin­ning of the next. The last few words of (15a), in con­trast, seem un­im­port­ant in re­la­tion to what fol­lows (in an­other con­text, of course, they might be cru­cial).

所以,检查完每句话的前六七个词之后,也要检查最后五六个词。如果这些词不是最重要、最复杂或最有力的,那就修改它们,使之成为最重要、最复杂或最有力的词。尤其要注意那些引出段落甚至章节的句子的结尾部分。

So once you’ve checked the first six or seven words in every sen­tence, check the last five or six as well. If those words are not the most im­port­ant, com­plex, or weighty, re­vise so that they are. Look es­pe­cially at the ends of sen­tences that in­tro­duce para­graphs or even sec­tions.

15.6  编辑润色

15.6  Ed­it­or­ial Pol­ish

我们已经阐述了四项最能帮助作者向读者传达复杂思想和论点的写作风格原则。我们没有提及其他原则——例如句长、用词、简洁性、平行结构等等——并非因为它们不重要,而是因为我们认为它们的重要性不及这四项原则。如果您有兴趣了解更多,市面上有很多书籍涵盖这些内容(附录中提供了一些建议),我们鼓励您继续阅读。但是,即使您的句子结构良好,仍然有很多工作要做。您仍然需要检查语法、拼写、还有标点符号。此外,你还要确保遵循了数字、专有名词、非英语语言词汇等的通用表示规范。虽然这些细节看似繁琐,但你对它们的重视体现了你对主题和读者的关心与尊重。

We have ex­plained four prin­ciples of style that most help writers com­mu­nic­ate com­plex ideas and ar­gu­ments to their read­ers. We have left other prin­ciples—of sen­tence length, word choice, con­cision, par­al­lel con­struc­tions, and so on—un­ad­dressed, not be­cause they are un­im­port­ant but be­cause we be­lieve they are sec­ond­ary to those four. If you are in­ter­ested in learn­ing more, there are many books that cover them (see the ap­pendix for some sug­ges­tions), and we en­cour­age you to read on. But once you have your sen­tences in good shape, there is still more work to be done. You still have to check your gram­mar, spelling, and punc­tu­ation. Then you have to make sure that you have ob­served the ac­cep­ted con­ven­tions for rep­res­ent­ing num­bers, proper names, words in lan­guages other than Eng­lish, and so on. Though such mat­ters of pol­ish may seem pesky, your at­ten­tion to them in­dic­ates your care and re­spect for your sub­ject and your read­ers.

▶ 小贴士:最快的复习策略

▶ Quick Tip: The Quick­est Re­vi­sion Strategy

我们关于修改的建议可能看起来过于详细,但只要按步骤修改,其实很容易做到。不过,你的首要任务是把你的想法用文字表达出来,这样你才能有东西可以修改。如果你在写作过程中不停地问自己是否遵循了某种写作原则,那就永远无法做到这一点。有了初稿之后,你就可以针对读者进行润色了。如果你没有时间逐句检查,那就先从那些你觉得难以解释清楚的段落入手。这些段落里的句子很可能最难懂。最后,大声朗读你的文章。如果你自己读起来磕磕绊绊,读者也一样会读得磕磕绊绊。

Our ad­vice about re­vi­sion may seem overly de­tailed, but if you re­vise in steps, it’s simple to fol­low. Your first job, though, is to put your ideas into words so that you have some­thing to re­vise. You will never do that if you keep ask­ing your­self as you write whether you are fol­low­ing this or that prin­ciple of style. Once you have a draft, you can then shape it for your read­ers. If you don’t have time to look at every sen­tence, start with pas­sages where you found it hard to ex­plain your ideas. Those are the places where your sen­tences are likely to be the most dif­fi­cult for your read­ers. Fi­nally, read your writ­ing out loud. If you stumble, your read­ers will too.

为了清晰流畅

For Clar­ity and Flow

诊断方法:

To dia­gnose:

  1. 1. 标出每个句子和从句的前六七个单词。忽略诸如“起初”、“大部分情况下”等简短的引导短语。
  2. 1. High­light the first six or seven words in every sen­tence and clause. Ig­nore short in­tro­duct­ory phrases such as At first, For the most part, and so on.
  3. 2. 检查每句话中高亮显示的词语。它们至少应该包含一个指代人物的主语。如果没有,请修改。
  4. 2. Check the high­lighted words in each sen­tence. They should in­clude at least a sub­ject that names a char­ac­ter. If they don’t, re­vise.
  5. 3. 检查一下你的动词。它们大多描述的是重要的动作吗?如果不是,请修改。
  6. 3. Look at your verbs. Do most of them name im­port­ant ac­tions? If not, re­vise.
  7. 4. 最后,检查句首的词语是否指代读者能够明显理解其含义的人或概念。如果不是,请进行修改。
  8. 4. Fi­nally, check that the words at the be­gin­nings of sen­tences name people or con­cepts that your read­ers will find clearly re­lated. If they don’t, re­vise.

修改:

To re­vise:

  1. 1. 确定你的主要人物,并让他们成为动词的主语。
  2. 1. Identify your main char­ac­ters, and make them the sub­jects of verbs.
  3. 2. 查找以-tion-ment-ence等结尾的名词。考虑将它们转化为动词,尤其是在它们作主语时。
  4. 2. Look for nouns end­ing in -tion, -ment, -ence, and so on. Con­sider turn­ing them into verbs, es­pe­cially if they are sub­jects.
  5. 3. 确保每句话都以熟悉的信息开头,最好是以你之前提到过的角色开头。
  6. 3. Make sure that each sen­tence be­gins with fa­mil­iar in­form­a­tion, prefer­ably a char­ac­ter you have men­tioned be­fore.

为了强调

For Em­phasis

诊断方法:

To dia­gnose:

  1. 1. 将每句话的最后五六个单词标出来。
  2. 1. High­light the last five or six words in every sen­tence.
  3. 2. 你应该突出显示
    • ▪ 你第一次使用的专业术语
    • ▪ 新的或复杂的信息
    • 接下来几句话将阐述的概念
    • ▪ 你想强调的词语和短语
  4. 2. You should have high­lighted
    • ▪  tech­nical-sound­ing words that you are us­ing for the first time
    • ▪  new or com­plex in­form­a­tion
    • ▪  con­cepts that the next sev­eral sen­tences will de­velop
    • ▪  words and phrases you want to stress

修改:

To re­vise:

  1. 1. 如果你找不到这些内容,请在句子的其他地方查找它们,并将它们移到句末。
  2. 1. If you do not find those things, look for them else­where in the sen­tence and move them to the end.
  3. 2. 如果你高亮显示的词语表达的是熟悉的信息,就把它们在句子中往前移。
  4. 2. If the words you high­lighted ex­press fa­mil­iar in­form­a­tion, move them for­ward in the sen­tence.
  5. 3. 如果你突出显示的词语提供了上下文或框架信息(例如,“如图 1 所示,……”),请将它们在句子中向前移动。
  6. 3. If the words you high­lighted provide con­tex­tual or fram­ing in­form­a­tion (e.g., “As noted in fig­ure 1, . . .”) move them for­ward in the sen­tence.

16 项研究报告

16  Re­search Present­a­tions

本章将向您展示如何规划、撰写并进行研究报告。我们重点不在于报告的补充材料(例如讲义或幻灯片),而在于您如何才能有效地向现场观众进行演讲。

In this chapter, we show you how to plan, draft, and then de­liver a re­search present­a­tion. We fo­cus less on your present­a­tion’s sup­ple­ments—your handout or slides—than on what you must do to ad­dress a live audi­ence.

或许你现在的职业生涯还处于早期阶段,考虑发表研究成果还为时尚早,但展示研究成果却并不为时过早。各个阶段的研究人员都会通过现场或线上演讲的方式与他人交流,通常会使用幻灯片和讲义。越来越多的本科生甚至中学生研究人员也开始以这种方式与课堂内外的听众分享他们的研究成果,例如在当地的研究成果展示会和学术会议上。你的演讲内容可能基于你正在撰写的论文,也可能是你整个研究项目的最终成果。无论哪种情况,清晰自信地公开展示研究成果的能力对于任何职业生涯都至关重要。

It may be too early in your ca­reer to think about pub­lish­ing your re­search, but it’s not too early to present it. Re­search­ers at all stages com­mu­nic­ate their work to oth­ers in live present­a­tions de­livered in per­son or on­line, of­ten in­cor­por­at­ing slides and handouts. In­creas­ingly, un­der­gradu­ate and even sec­ond­ary-school re­search­ers share their work in this way with audi­ences in and bey­ond the classroom, in­clud­ing at local re­search fairs and aca­demic con­fer­ences. Your present­a­tion may be based on a pa­per you are writ­ing or it may be the cul­min­a­tion of your re­search pro­ject in its own right. Either way, the abil­ity to present your re­search clearly and con­fid­ently in pub­lic is a cru­cial skill for any ca­reer.

16.1  向审计师汇报

16.1  Present­ing to Aud­it­ors

当你用论文或报告阐述你的研究论点时,你是为读者而写当你进行现场演讲时,你是在向听众——也就是那些会观看、聆听并以其他方式关注你实时阐述论点的人——进行陈述。

When you de­liver your re­search ar­gu­ment in a pa­per or re­port, you write for an audi­ence of read­ers. When you de­liver it in a live present­a­tion, you give it to an audi­ence of aud­it­ors—that is, an audi­ence made up of people who will watch, listen to, and oth­er­wise fol­low you as you share your ar­gu­ment in real time.

我们在第四部分中讨论的关于为读者写作的大部分内容也适用于为审计人员制作演示文稿。但是,除非你了解并尊重这两种受众之间的差异,否则你的演示文稿会让人感到疲惫或难以理解。阅读时,我们可以停下来思考和琢磨难懂的段落。为了保持思路清晰,我们我们可以查看标题,甚至段落缩进。如果我们走神了,可以随时重读。但审计人员却做不到这些。他们必须有动力集中注意力,而且需要帮助才能理解复杂的思路。

Most of what we have said in part IV about writ­ing for read­ers ap­plies also to cre­at­ing present­a­tions for aud­it­ors. But un­less you know and re­spect the dif­fer­ence between these two types of audi­ences, your present­a­tion will be tir­ing or hard to fol­low. When we read, we can stop to re­flect and puzzle over dif­fi­cult pas­sages. To stay on track, we can look at head­ings and even para­graph in­dent­a­tions. If our minds wander, we can al­ways re­read. But aud­it­ors can do none of these things. They must be mo­tiv­ated to pay at­ten­tion, and they need help to fol­low com­plic­ated lines of thought.

因此,你不能只是照本宣科地念稿,几乎不与听众进行眼神交流或其他互动;如果你使用幻灯片,也不能只是简单地投影并重复内容。你必须格外注意帮助审核人员理解你的讲解。以下是一些建议,希望能对你有所帮助。

That’s why you can’t simply read your pa­per with little or no eye con­tact or other en­gage­ment with your audi­ence or, if you are us­ing slides, merely pro­ject them and re­peat their con­tent. You have to give ex­tra care to help­ing your aud­it­ors fol­low and un­der­stand you. Here is some ad­vice to help you do that.

16.1.2  设计可供现场观看的演示文稿

16.1.2  Design Your Present­a­tion to Be Fol­lowed Live

为了吸引审计人员的注意力,你必须表现得不像是在对他们说教,而像是在他们对话。这是一项并不容易掌握的技能。我们当中很少有人能像说话一样写作,而且大多数人都需要笔记才能跟上思路。

To hold your aud­it­ors’ at­ten­tion, you must seem to be not lec­tur­ing at them but con­vers­ing with them. This is a skill that does not come eas­ily. Few of us can write as we would speak, and most of us need notes to stay on track.

如果你要阅读稿件,每页阅读速度不要超过两分钟(假设每页300字)。这比你平时说话的速度要快,所以要计时。经验不足的演讲者往往阅读速度过快,听众难以轻松听懂和理解。此外,让听众看到你本人,而不仅仅是你的头顶,这一点也很重要;因此,要安排一些与听众直接交流的时刻,尤其是在你讲到重要内容的时候。每页至少要这样做一到两次,理想情况下是在每个段落的结尾。

If you do read your pa­per, read no faster than two minutes per page (at 300 words a page). This is faster than you speak or­din­ar­ily, so time your­self. In­ex­per­i­enced presenters tend to read more quickly than their aud­it­ors can com­fort­ably hear and di­gest. It’s also im­port­ant that your audi­ence see you, and not just the top of your head; so build in mo­ments when you look dir­ectly at your audi­ence, es­pe­cially when you say some­thing im­port­ant. Do so at least once or twice per page, ideally at the end of each para­graph.

最后,务必明确你的目的和组织。如果你要朗读论文,请使用比供人阅读的论文更简单的句子。尽量使用主语一致的短句(参见15.2)。多用“我”、“我们”和“你”。对读者来说可能略显重复,但对那些没有文本在手的听众来说却很友好。

Fi­nally, be ex­pli­cit about your pur­pose and your or­gan­iz­a­tion. If you’re read­ing a pa­per aloud, use sim­pler sen­tences than you would in a pa­per to be read. Fa­vor shorter sen­tences with con­sist­ent sub­jects (see 15.2). Use “I,” “we,” and “you” a lot. What may seem re­pet­it­ive to read­ers will be wel­comed by audi­ences who do not have a text in front of them.

16.1.3  设计演示文稿时要考虑其易用性

16.1.3  Design Your Present­a­tion to Be Ac­cess­ible

许多审计人员能够旁听和观看您的演示,但也有一些人无法做到。同样,不同的人处理信息的最佳方式也不同,因此在进行演示时,您应该使用多种沟通渠道——口头讲解、视觉辅助、带文字的讲义等等。您有责任确保……你的演示文稿应该让所有听众都能理解。以下是一些你可以采取的措施来履行这一责任:

Many of your aud­it­ors will be able to listen to and watch you as you present. But some will not. Like­wise, dif­fer­ent people pro­cess in­form­a­tion best in dif­fer­ent ways, so in giv­ing present­a­tions, you should use mul­tiple chan­nels of com­mu­nic­a­tion—spoken words, visu­als, handouts with text, and so on. It is your re­spons­ib­il­ity to en­sure that your present­a­tion is ac­cess­ible to every­one in your audi­ence. Here are some things you can do to meet that re­spons­ib­il­ity:

  • ▪ 避免仅依靠颜色来区分信息(参见第 13 章)。
  • ▪  Avoid re­ly­ing solely on col­ors to dif­fer­en­ti­ate in­form­a­tion (see chapter 13).
  • ▪ 幻灯片标题和正文标题应使用大字体;避免使用大段小字。
  • ▪  Use a large font for slide titles and head­ings; avoid blocks of small text.
  • ▪ 在视频片段中添加字幕。
  • ▪  In­clude cap­tion­ing in video clips.
  • ▪ 口头描述任何图表、表格、图像或视频。
  • ▪  Or­ally de­scribe any charts, tables, im­ages, or videos.

您可以提供以下材料:

Here are some ma­ter­i­als you can provide:

  • ▪ 一份完整的演示文稿脚本,供那些需要或更喜欢以视觉或文本方式处理信息的人使用。
  • ▪  A script of your full present­a­tion for those who need or prefer to pro­cess in­form­a­tion visu­ally or tex­tu­ally
  • ▪ 幻灯片讲义
  • ▪  A handout of your slides
  • ▪ 可下载任何图表、表格、图像和视频的音频描述
  • ▪  Down­load­able au­dio de­scrip­tions of any charts, tables, im­ages, and videos

您可以将部分资源以纸质形式提供。您也可以提供数字访问权限,例如通过二维码,让审核人员将所需内容下载到电脑、手机或其他设备上。

You can provide some of these re­sources on pa­per. You can also provide di­gital ac­cess, for ex­ample through a QR code that lets your aud­it­ors down­load what they need to a com­puter, phone, or device.

16.1.4  演示设计说明

16.1.4  Design Notes for Present­ing

你在演讲时使用的笔记与你在做研究或撰写论文时使用的笔记有所不同(参见4.610.2)。它们的目的是帮助你保持思路清晰,并与听众建立联系,从而让他们更投入到你的演讲中。你的笔记不应该分散你的注意力,也不应该过于繁复,以至于你把注意力放在笔记上,而不是你的演讲内容和听众身上。

The notes you use when present­ing dif­fer from those that you cre­ate when do­ing your re­search or that you would use to plan a writ­ten pa­per (see 4.6 and 10.2). Their pur­pose is to keep you on track and to help you con­nect with your aud­it­ors, so that they are en­gaged by your present­a­tion. Your notes should not dis­tract you or be so elab­or­ate that you end up fo­cus­ing on them rather than on your mes­sage and your audi­ence.

设计演讲笔记并没有唯一正确的方法。事实上,成为一名经验丰富的演讲者,关键在于根据自身偏好和身体状况,找到最适合自己的笔记风格。例如,视力障碍的演讲者可能更倾向于使用耳机收听音频笔记,而不是纸质笔记。不过,我们可以提供一些适用于大多数人的通用技巧:

There is no single right way to design notes for present­ing. In fact, part of be­com­ing an ex­per­i­enced presenter is fig­ur­ing out what style of notes works for you given your pref­er­ences and phys­ical re­quire­ments. Presenters with low vis­ion, for ex­ample, might rely on au­dio notes they ac­cess through an earpiece rather than writ­ten notes. But we can of­fer you some gen­eral tips that work for most people:

  • ▪ 不要把笔记写成完整的句子(更不用说段落了),然后再大声朗读。笔记应该帮助你追踪进度。你的演讲结构以及在关键时刻该说什么。
  • ▪  Do not write your notes as com­plete sen­tences (much less para­graphs) that you then read aloud. Notes should help you track the struc­ture of your present­a­tion and cue what to say at cru­cial mo­ments.
  • ▪ 重点突出演示文稿中最重要的部分。拟定完整的引言和结论。按顺序列出你的理由,最好用粗体大字印刷;针对每个理由,列出两到三个最有力的证据,只需指出证据名称即可,无需解释。
  • ▪  Fo­cus on the most im­port­ant parts of your present­a­tion. Sketch a com­plete in­tro­duc­tion and con­clu­sion. List your reas­ons, in or­der, prefer­ably prin­ted in large bold type; for each reason, list your two or three best bits of evid­ence, named but not ex­plained.
  • ▪ 每个要点单独用一页。在每一页上,将你的要点写成一个论点,而不是一个主题,可以用简短的句子,或者(如果必须的话)用完整的句子。在每个要点上方,你可以添加一个明确的过渡词,作为口头上的副标题:“第一个问题是……”
  • ▪  Use a sep­ar­ate page for each main point. On each page, write out your main point not as a topic but as a claim, either in shortened form or (if you must) in com­plete sen­tences. Above each point, you might add an ex­pli­cit trans­ition as the oral equi­val­ent of a sub­head: “The first is­sue is . . .”
  • ▪ 将这些要点醒目地标示出来,以便你能立即找到它们。在每个要点下方,列出支持它的证据。如果你的证据包含数字或引文,你可能需要将它们写下来,以确保你能准确地表达出来。
  • ▪  Prom­in­ently mark those main points so that you spot them in­stantly. Un­der each, list the evid­ence that sup­ports it. If your evid­ence con­sists of num­bers or quo­ta­tions, you’ll prob­ably have to write them out, to be sure you can de­liver them ac­cur­ately.
  • ▪ 组织好你的论点,先阐述最重要的内容。如果篇幅过长(我们大多数人都会遇到这种情况),你可以跳过后面的部分,甚至直接得出结论,而不会遗漏任何对论证至关重要的信息。切勿过度渲染,以免无法达到高潮。如果必须跳过某些内容,请利用问答环节再进行补充。
  • ▪  Or­gan­ize your points so that you cover the most im­port­ant ones first. If you run long (most of us do), you can skip a later sec­tion or even jump to your con­clu­sion without los­ing any­thing cru­cial to your ar­gu­ment. Never build up to a cli­max that you might not reach. If you must skip some­thing, use the ques­tion-and-an­swer period to re­turn to it.

最后,务必克制住准备完整讲稿的冲动。我们很多人都会对演讲感到焦虑,尤其是在需要回答问题的情况下。这很正常。一些新手演讲者认为,克服这种焦虑的办法是依赖讲稿,照本宣科,而不是即兴发挥。尽管这样做很诱人,但通常来说并非明智之举。听众希望你与他们互动,而不是仅仅照本宣科(他们自己就能做到这一点)。

Fi­nally, res­ist the tempta­tion to write out a full script. Many of us get anxious about present­ing, es­pe­cially if we’re ex­pec­ted to field ques­tions. That’s nat­ural. Some novice presenters think the cure for that anxi­ety is to rely on a script they can just read rather than to speak ex­tem­por­an­eously from notes. As tempt­ing as that may be, it’s gen­er­ally a bad idea. Your aud­it­ors will want you to en­gage with them, not just read to them (they can do that for them­selves).

当然,一些经验丰富的演讲者确实会写完整的讲稿。但他们不会逐字逐句地照着念。相反,他们会根据讲稿进行演讲,利用讲稿来保持思路清晰,并提醒自己一些关键的句子或短语。如果你觉得这种方法适合你,不妨一试。

Of course, some ex­per­i­enced presenters do write out full scripts. But they don’t read them word for word. In­stead, they speak from them, us­ing them to stay on track and to re­mind them­selves of key sen­tences or phrases. If you think that ap­proach will work for you, try it.

16.2  做初步介绍

16.2  Giv­ing a Pre­lim­in­ary Present­a­tion

我们鼓励您寻找机会展示您的研究成果,不仅在研究完成后,而且在研究过程中也要积极参与。如果您是撰写论文或准备正式演示文稿时,如果您是学生,可以考虑在课堂上进行展示;如果您是高年级学生,可以向研究小组进行展示;或者向任何愿意倾听的听众进行展示。虽然初步展示会比最终论文或演示文稿更非正式,但它仍然是一项很有价值的练习,因为它可以让您获得即时反馈,这在检验新想法或新数据时非常有用。没有什么比现场听众更能帮助您理清思路了,他们可以随时做出回应。

We en­cour­age you to seek out op­por­tun­it­ies to present your re­search not just when you have fin­ished it but as you are do­ing it. If you are writ­ing a pa­per or de­vel­op­ing a formal present­a­tion, con­sider present­ing it to your class if you are a stu­dent, to your re­search group if you are more ad­vanced, or to any audi­ence will­ing to pay at­ten­tion. While a pre­lim­in­ary present­a­tion will be more in­formal than your fi­nal pa­per or present­a­tion, it is still a valu­able ex­er­cise, be­cause it will let you get im­me­di­ate feed­back that can be very help­ful when test­ing new ideas or new data. There is noth­ing like a live audi­ence, able to re­spond in the mo­ment, to help you cla­rify your think­ing.

你在这个阶段的展示应该有两个目标:(1)预测你将在最终论文或展示中提出的论点,以便检验它在表达上是否与想法一样合理;(2)通过他人的反馈来检验你的想法。具体来说,你在这个阶段的展示应该做到以下三点:

Your present­a­tion at this stage should have two goals: (1) to fore­cast the ar­gu­ment you will make in your fi­nal pa­per or present­a­tion, so that you can dis­cover whether it makes as much sense when you say it as when you think it; and (2) to test your ideas through the re­sponses of oth­ers. In par­tic­u­lar, your present­a­tion at this stage should do three things:

  • ▪ 提出你的研究问题或难题并阐述你的论点
  • ▪  present your re­search ques­tion or prob­lem and claim
  • ▪ 简述您支持该主张的理由
  • ▪  out­line your reas­ons sup­port­ing that claim
  • ▪ 预览您将用来支持这些理由的证据类型
  • ▪  pre­view the kind of evid­ence you will use to sup­port those reas­ons

16.2.1  写出完整的引言和结论

16.2.1  Write Out a Com­plete In­tro­duc­tion and Con­clu­sion

你的演讲有两个部分必须做好:引言,它能让听众对接下来的内容有所了解;以及结论,它能告诉听众应该记住哪些要点。由于这两个部分至关重要,你应该提前做好充分的准备。你不需要死记硬背,但应该进行足够的练习,以便在演讲时只需偶尔参考笔记即可。这样,你就能自信地开场,从而提升接下来的表现;而自信地结束演讲,也会影响听众对演讲的记忆。

There are two parts of your present­a­tion that you must get right: your in­tro­duc­tion, which pre­pares your audi­ence for what’s com­ing, and your con­clu­sion, which tells them what to re­mem­ber. Be­cause these parts are so im­port­ant, you should fully pre­pare them in ad­vance. You don’t need to mem­or­ize them, but you should re­hearse enough that you can de­liver them while re­fer­ring only oc­ca­sion­ally to your notes. That way you get off to a con­fid­ent start, which will im­prove the rest of your per­form­ance, and you end con­fid­ently, which will in­flu­ence how your audi­ence re­mem­bers it.

如果你已经创建了故事板,那么你已经有了引言的草稿和结论的笔记。在笔记中,请使用口语化的语言。除了你可能需要的专业术语外,尽量自然地表达:避免使用你不习惯说的词(或者练习直到你能够熟练使用),也避免使用听起来像教科书的词。清晰地陈述你的研究问题或难题,并确保以你的主要观点结尾。在中间部分,尽可能地回答“那又怎样?”这个问题。

If you have cre­ated a story­board, you already have a sketch of an in­tro­duc­tion and notes on a con­clu­sion. In your notes, use lan­guage to be spoken. Ex­cept for tech­nical terms you may need, speak nat­ur­ally: avoid words that you aren’t com­fort­able say­ing (or prac­tice un­til you are com­fort­able) or that make you sound like a text­book. State your re­search ques­tion or prob­lem clearly, and be sure to end with your main point. In between, do what you can to an­swer So what?

16.2.2  将笔记正文写成大纲

16.2.2  Make the Body of Your Notes an Out­line

在演讲正文中,重点阐述你的理由。用粗体字标出这些理由,并以此整理你的笔记。这些句子你必须确保能够表达出来。至于其他内容,则要根据听众的情况灵活调整:把时间花在他们感兴趣的部分,忽略那些他们不感兴趣的部分。但务必涵盖每一个理由。在总结之前,按顺序回顾你的主要理由——这是对你论点的最佳概括。

In the body of your present­a­tion, con­cen­trate on your reas­ons. Use them to or­gan­ize your notes, in bold type. These are the sen­tences you must be sure to say. For everything else, ad­apt to your audi­ence: spend time on what seems to en­gage them; skip what doesn’t. But do cover each reason. And just be­fore you con­clude, run through your main reas­ons in or­der—this is the best sum­mary of your ar­gu­ment.

如果时间允许,请提供一些最有力的证据,特别是那些听众不太可能立即接受的理由。但在这个阶段,你的陈述应该集中在你的问题、你的论点以及支持它的理由上。清晰地表达出来,你就已经做得非常好了。

If you have time, present some of your best evid­ence, es­pe­cially for any reas­ons that your audi­ence is un­likely to ac­cept right off. But at this stage, your present­a­tion should be fo­cused on your prob­lem, your claim, and your reas­ons sup­port­ing it. Com­mu­nic­ate them clearly, and you will have done a fine job.

16.2.3  列出一些待讨论的问题

16.2.3  List Some Ques­tions for Dis­cus­sion

初步演示对你和听众来说都同样重要。事实上,它的主要目的往往不是为了传达你的想法,而是为了帮助你完善和检验这些想法。演示后的深入讨论(通常称为“问答环节”)可以有效地帮助你实现这一目标。为了使讨论尽可能高效,你可以问问自己:我的论点中哪些方面我最不确定?我认为我最好的想法是什么?我可能遗漏了什么?我的哪些推理思路对我来说清晰,但对其他人来说却不清晰?然后,准备一些问题,引导讨论聚焦于你最想了解的内容。

A pre­lim­in­ary present­a­tion is as much for you as for your audi­ence. In fact, its main pur­pose is of­ten less to com­mu­nic­ate your ideas than to help you re­fine and test them. A ro­bust dis­cus­sion (of­ten called a “Q&A”) after your present­a­tion can help you do that. To make this dis­cus­sion as pro­duct­ive as pos­sible, ask your­self, What areas of my ar­gu­ment am I most un­sure about? What do I think is my best idea? What might I be miss­ing? Where might my reas­on­ing be clear to me but not to oth­ers? Then plan some ques­tions that will fo­cus the dis­cus­sion on what you most want to find out.

16.3  做最终汇报

16.3  Giv­ing a Fi­nal Present­a­tion

初步陈述和最终陈述至少有两个重要的区别:之前你还在猜测自己的论点是什么;现在你已经明确了。这会让你的陈述更有信心,但结构不变。此外,你现在也知道你的证据是如何支撑每个论点的。因此,在最终陈述中,你应该比在初步陈述中更加重视证据。但是,不要把收集到的所有证据都一一列举出来,即使它们与主题相关。否则,你会超时。相反,你应该针对每个论点只展示一个最有力的证据。这样,听众就能确信你有能力支撑你的论点,而无需消化你所有的论证。

There are at least two im­port­ant dif­fer­ences between a pre­lim­in­ary present­a­tion and a fi­nal one: Be­fore you were guess­ing what your ar­gu­ment might be; now you know. That should make your present­a­tion more con­fid­ent but not dif­fer­ent in struc­ture. Also, you now know how your evid­ence sup­ports each reason. Ac­cord­ingly, you should give more at­ten­tion to evid­ence in a fi­nal present­a­tion than in a pre­lim­in­ary one. But do not lead your audi­ence through every scrap of evid­ence you gathered, even if it’s rel­ev­ant. If you do, you will run out of time. In­stead, present one best bit of evid­ence for each reason. This will as­sure your audi­ence that you can back up your claims without their hav­ing to di­gest your en­tire ar­gu­ment.

16.3.1  缩小关注范围

16.3.1  Nar­row Your Fo­cus

通常,一次演讲所能涵盖的内容只有论文的一小部分。演讲的优势在于可以与听众互动;而写作的优势在于可以详细阐述论点,这在现场演讲中是不切实际的——除非演讲持续数小时!这或许显而易见,但值得牢记,因为即使是经验丰富的研究人员也会犯这样的错误:试图在有限的时间内塞入过多的文字。

Typ­ic­ally, a present­a­tion can cover only a frac­tion of what a pa­per can. An ad­vant­age of present­ing is that you can in­ter­act with your audi­ence; an ad­vant­age of writ­ing is that you can lay out your ar­gu­ment at a level of de­tail that would be im­prac­tical in a live present­a­tion—un­less it went on for hours! That may seem ob­vi­ous, but it’s worth re­mem­ber­ing, be­cause even seasoned re­search­ers make the mis­take of try­ing to cram too many words into their al­lot­ted time.

最终汇报通常比初步汇报更加正式。事实上,在某些领域,演讲者需要照着详细的讲稿朗读。如果你的领域也这样,那就照做。但一定要练习,以免听起来像是第一次读自己的稿子。在20分钟的汇报中,无论你是照着讲稿朗读还是照着笔记讲,都要准备8到10页双倍行距的文本。这样留给你表达想法的篇幅并不多,所以你必须将你的工作提炼到核心要点,或者只展示其中的一部分。以下是两种常见的做法:

Fi­nal present­a­tions are of­ten more formal than pre­lim­in­ary ones. In fact, in some fields, presenters are ex­pec­ted to read aloud from de­tailed scripts. If that’s the case in your field, do it. But prac­tice, so that you don’t sound like you are read­ing your own words for the first time. In a twenty-minute present­a­tion, whether you are read­ing aloud from a script or speak­ing from notes, plan on de­liv­er­ing eight-to-ten double-spaced pages of text. That doesn’t give you many words in which to com­mu­nic­ate your ideas, so you must boil down your work to its es­sence or present just a part of it. Here are two com­mon op­tions:

  • ▪  提出你的论点,并简要概述你的论证。如果你的论点是新的,请着重强调其原创性。首先做一个简短的引言,然后解释你的理由,并总结每个理由的证据。
  • ▪  Claim with a sketch of your ar­gu­ment. If your claim is new, fo­cus on its ori­gin­al­ity. Start with a short in­tro­duc­tion, then ex­plain your reas­ons, sum­mar­iz­ing your evid­ence for each.
  • ▪  子论点概述。如果你的论点过于庞大,无法在规定时间内展开,那就重点阐述一个关键的子论点。在引言和结论中提及你的主要论点,但要明确指出你只讨论了其中的一部分。
  • ▪  Sum­mary of a sub-ar­gu­ment. If your ar­gu­ment is too big to de­liver in the time you have, fo­cus on a key sub-ar­gu­ment. Men­tion your main claim in your in­tro­duc­tion and con­clu­sion, but be clear that you are ad­dress­ing only part of it.

16.3.2  拟定你的引言

16.3.2  Sketch Your In­tro­duc­tion

对于简短的演讲,你只有一次机会在听众注意力分散之前吸引他们,因此,务必比其他任何部分都更认真地准备引言。引言可以参考第14章中描述的引言三部分。你还可以提供一个路线图,预先说明演讲的方向。(以下我们建议的演讲时长为20分钟。)

For a short present­a­tion, you get only one shot at mo­tiv­at­ing your aud­it­ors be­fore they tune out, so pre­pare your in­tro­duc­tion more care­fully than any other part. Base it on the three parts of an in­tro­duc­tion de­scribed in chapter 14. You might also of­fer a road map that pre­views the dir­ec­tion your present­a­tion will take. (Be­low we sug­gest times for a talk last­ing twenty minutes.)

笔记仅用于提醒自己这三个部分,而不是逐字逐句地抄写。如果你记不住内容,说明你还没准备好做演讲。笔记中只需概括要点,以便提醒自己以下内容:

Use notes only to re­mind your­self of those three parts, not as a word-for-word script. If you can’t re­mem­ber the con­tent, you’re not ready to give your present­a­tion. Sketch enough in your notes to re­mind your­self of the fol­low­ing:

  1. 1. 您对哪些研究进行了扩展、修改或更正(不超过一分钟)。
  2. 1. What re­search you ex­tend, modify, or cor­rect (no more than a minute).
  3. 2. 你的研究旨在解决什么问题——知识或理解上的差距(30 秒或更短)。
  4. 2. What ques­tion your re­search ad­dresses—the gap in know­ledge or un­der­stand­ing (thirty seconds or less).
  5. 3. 为什么你的研究很重要——回答“那又怎样?”(30 秒)。
  6. 3. Why your re­search mat­ters—an an­swer to So what? (thirty seconds).

正如你现在所知,这三个步骤对于激发听众的兴趣至关重要。如果你的问题比较新颖或具有争议性,请多花些时间。如果听众意识到问题的重要性,就快速提及,然后继续讲解。

Those three steps, as you know by now, are cru­cial to mo­tiv­at­ing your audi­ence. If your ques­tion is new or con­tro­ver­sial, give it more time. If your audi­ence re­cog­nizes its sig­ni­fic­ance, men­tion it quickly and go on.

  1. 4. 你的研究问题的答案是什么?也就是说,你的论点是什么?(30 秒或更短时间)
  2. 4. What is the an­swer to your re­search ques­tion, that is, your claim (thirty seconds or less).

审计人员比读者更希望立即知道你的答案。因此,除非你有充分的理由等待,否则请立即说明答案。如果必须等待,至少要提前预览一下。

Aud­it­ors want to know your an­swer up front, even more than read­ers do. So un­less you have a com­pel­ling reason to wait, state your an­swer up front. If you must wait, at least pre­view it.

  1. 5. 你将如何组织你的演讲(10 到 20 秒)。
  2. 5. How you will struc­ture your present­a­tion (ten to twenty seconds).

最有效的方法是使用口头目录:“首先,我将讨论……”。这种写法在书面上可能显得笨拙,但听演讲的听众比阅读论文的听众需要更多帮助。在演讲正文中重复使用这种结构。

Most use­ful is an oral table of con­tents: “First, I will dis­cuss . . .” That may seem clumsy in print, but an audi­ence listen­ing to a present­a­tion needs more help than one read­ing a pa­per. Re­peat that struc­ture through the body of your present­a­tion.

事先练习一下你的开场白,不仅是为了确保表达正确,也是为了在介绍过程中能够与听众进行眼神交流或其他互动。你可以稍后再查阅笔记。

Re­hearse your in­tro­duc­tion, not only to get it right but also to be able to look dir­ectly at or oth­er­wise en­gage your audi­ence as you give it. You can con­sult your notes later.

总的来说,自我介绍的时间不要超过三分钟左右。

All told, spend no more than three minutes or so on your in­tro­duc­tion.

16.3.3  根据引言部分构建结论

16.3.3  Model Your Con­clu­sion on Your In­tro­duc­tion

让你的结论令人难忘,以便审计人员在问“琼斯说了什么”时能够复述出来。务必熟记结论,以便无需照本宣科就能完整地陈述出来。结论应包含以下三个部分:

Make your con­clu­sion mem­or­able, so that aud­it­ors will re­peat it when asked, What did Jones say? Learn it well enough to present it without read­ing from your notes. It should have these three parts:

  • ▪ 详细阐述你的主张,比引言部分更详细(如果审核人员主要对你的理由或数据感兴趣,也请进行总结);
  • ▪  your claim, in more de­tail than in your in­tro­duc­tion (if your aud­it­ors are mostly in­ter­ested in your reas­ons or data, sum­mar­ize them as well);
  • ▪ 你对“那又怎样?”的回答(你可以重述你在引言中的答案,但尽量添加一个新的答案,即使是推测性的);
  • ▪  your an­swer to So what? (you can re­state an an­swer from your in­tro­duc­tion, but try to add a new one, even if it’s spec­u­lat­ive);
  • ▪ 对未来研究方向的建议,以及还有哪些工作要做。
  • ▪  sug­ges­tions for more re­search, what’s still to be done.

事先预演一下你的结论部分,确保你清楚它需要多长时间(不超过一两分钟)。然后,当剩余时间足够时,即使你还没有讲完最后几个(相对不重要的)要点,也要立即结束演讲。如果你不得不跳过一两个要点,可以在问答环节中把它们融入到回答中。如果你的演讲时间不够,不要即兴发挥。你已经完成了。

Re­hearse your con­clu­sion so that you know ex­actly how long it takes (no more than a minute or two). Then when you have that much time re­main­ing, con­clude, even if you haven’t fin­ished your last (re­l­at­ively un­im­port­ant) points. If you had to skip one or two points, work them into an an­swer dur­ing any ques­tion-and-an­swer period. If your present­a­tion runs short, don’t ad lib. You’re fin­ished.

16.3.4  预测问题

16.3.4  An­ti­cip­ate Ques­tions

如果你运气好,演讲结束后可能会有人提问,所以要提前准备好一些常见问题的答案。要做好被问到数据或资料来源的准备,尤其是如果你没有详细讲解的话。同时,也要做好被问到你从未听说过的资料来源的准备。最好的做法是坦诚承认你没听说过,但表示会去查阅。如果提问者态度友好,可以问问这个资料来源与你的研究有何关联。

If you’re lucky, you will get ques­tions after your present­a­tion, so pre­pare an­swers for pre­dict­able ones. Ex­pect ques­tions about your data or sources, es­pe­cially if you didn’t cover them much. Also be pre­pared for ques­tions about a source you never heard of. The best policy is to ac­know­ledge that you haven’t but that you will check it out. If the ques­tion seems friendly, ask why the source is rel­ev­ant.

认真对待每一个问题;为了确保理解问题,在回答之前请稍作停顿,思考片刻。如果没听懂,请提问者换一种方式表达。好的问题弥足珍贵,即使它们看似棘手。要善用它们来完善你的思维。

At­tend to every ques­tion care­fully; then to be sure you un­der­stand the ques­tion, pause be­fore you re­spond and think about it for a mo­ment. If you don’t un­der­stand the ques­tion, ask the ques­tioner to re­ph­rase it. Good ques­tions are in­valu­able, even when they seem to be chal­lenges. Use them to re­fine your think­ing.

16.3.5  创建讲义

16.3.5  Cre­ate Handouts

如果您的证据适合,请准备一份讲义,也就是您演示文稿的补充材料,您可以将其以纸质或电子版(例如二维码)的形式分发给听众。讲义可以包含任何有助于听众理解和跟进您演示文稿的内容:关键幻灯片、引文列表、重要图表、插图、讨论问题等等。除非您的讲义是为了方便听众理解(参见16.1.3 ),否则请务必精简内容:讲义应该强调并强化您最重要的信息和论点,但如果内容过于庞杂,则无法达到此目的。

If your evid­ence is suit­able for it, pre­pare a handout, our term for a sup­ple­ment to your present­a­tion that you dis­trib­ute to the mem­bers of your audi­ence either on pa­per or di­git­ally, per­haps through a QR code. A handout can in­clude any­thing that will help your audi­ence fol­low and un­der­stand your present­a­tion: key slides, a list of quo­ta­tions, im­port­ant graph­ics or tables, il­lus­tra­tions, ques­tions for dis­cus­sion, and so on. Un­less your handout is for ac­cess­ib­il­ity (see 16.1.3), be se­lect­ive: it should em­phas­ize and re­in­force your most im­port­ant in­form­a­tion and claims, but it won’t do that if it in­cludes everything.

▶ 小贴士:把你的演讲当作一场表演来对待

▶ Quick Tip: Treat Your Present­a­tion as a Per­form­ance

想想你印象最深刻的现场演出——戏剧、音乐会,甚至是喜剧表演。如果你和我们一样,印象最深刻的应该是与表演者之间的那种情感连接。你不需要成为演员、流行歌星或喜剧演员才能成功进行研究报告(尽管我们认识一些学者尝试过),但和他们一样,你仍然需要与听众建立联系。报告与论文的区别在于你与听众之间的互动,以及听众与你的互动。论文是一篇供人阅读的文本,通常作者不在场;而报告虽然可以基于论文,但它是一场需要亲身体验的活动。换句话说,它是一场表演。

Think about the live per­form­ances you most re­mem­ber—plays, con­certs, even com­edy shows. If you are like us, what you re­mem­ber most is the con­nec­tion you felt with the per­formers. You don’t have to be an actor, pop star, or comedian to de­liver a suc­cess­ful re­search present­a­tion (al­though we have known some schol­ars who tried), but like them, you still need to con­nect with your audi­ence. What dis­tin­guishes a present­a­tion from a pa­per is your pres­ence to your audi­ence, and theirs to you. A pa­per is a text to be read, usu­ally in the ab­sence of its au­thor; a present­a­tion, while it can be based on a pa­per, is an event to be ex­per­i­enced. In other words, it’s a per­form­ance.

这并不是说你需要唱歌跳舞才能让观众开心。但你应该做一些能让他们保持兴趣和参与度的事情。以下是一些建议,其中一些我们在本章前面已经提到过,可以帮助你做到这一点:

That’s not to say that you need to sing and dance to keep your audi­ence en­ter­tained. But you should do things that will keep them in­ter­ested and en­gaged. Here are some tips, some of which we touched on earlier in this chapter, to help you do that:

  • 抬起  头来。观众不想听你照本宣科,他们想听你他们交流。所以,请从笔记或稿子上抬起头,与他们进行眼神交流。或者更好的是,对你的笔记足够熟悉,只需偶尔低头看看即可。
  • ▪  Look up. Audi­ences don’t want you to read at them; they want you to talk to them. So look up from your notes or script and make eye con­tact with them. Or bet­ter, know your notes well enough that you have to glance down at them only oc­ca­sion­ally.
  • ▪  说话要自然。听众不希望感觉像是在听机器人讲话。所以,讲话时要注意语速、节奏、语调和音量。通过语调的变化来突出论点或强调重点。但要注意:在演讲中“自然”地说话可能会显得很不自然,所以要多加练习。
  • ▪  Speak nat­ur­ally. Audi­ences don’t want to feel that they are be­ing ad­dressed by a ro­bot. So as you speak, pay at­ten­tion to your pace and rhythm, your tone and volume. Vary your speech to sig­nal turns in your ar­gu­ment or points of em­phasis. But be aware: speak­ing “nat­ur­ally” in a present­a­tion can feel very un­nat­ural, so prac­tice.
  • 即兴  发挥。偶尔可以脱离事先准备好的笔记或讲稿,插话、提问,甚至开个玩笑。你可以在笔记中预留这些时间,即使你没有写下具体要说的话。如果你的领域惯例是演讲者逐字逐句地朗读论文,你仍然可以在演讲中穿插一些即兴发言,与听众互动。
  • ▪  Ex­tem­por­ize. Oc­ca­sion­ally, de­part from your pre­pared notes or script to of­fer an aside, ask a ques­tion, or even make a joke. You can plan for these mo­ments in your notes, even if you don’t write down ex­actly what you will say. If the prac­tice in your field is for presenters to read their pa­pers ver­batim, you can still punc­tu­ate your present­a­tion with a few mo­ments in which you talk ex­tem­por­an­eously to your audi­ence.
  • ▪  展现个性。再说一遍,你不是机器人,所以不要害怕展现个性(真的)!有些主持人会营造一种沉稳严肃的氛围,而有些则更活泼,甚至更具戏剧性。你觉得最舒服的方式是:微笑、大笑、用手比划、偶尔说些俏皮话、离开讲台(但不要来回踱步——那样会分散注意力)。
  • ▪  Show some per­son­al­ity. Again, you’re not a ro­bot, so don’t be afraid to show some per­son­al­ity (really)! Some presenters cul­tiv­ate a quiet ser­i­ous­ness, while oth­ers are more dy­namic, even the­at­rical. Do what feels most com­fort­able for you: smile, laugh, ges­ture with your hands, of­fer the oc­ca­sional quip, move away from the po­dium (but don’t pace back and forth—that’s dis­tract­ing).
  • 最后  ,享受演讲的过程。有些人天生就是表演者。如果你是,那太好了。如果不是,也请尽量享受演讲的过程,至少有两个原因。首先,你会因为能够专注于自己的想法和听众的反应,而不是被自身的压力分散注意力,而更好地思考和表现。其次,看着一个演讲者仿佛如履薄冰般勉强完成演讲,实在令人难以忍受。记住,即使听众心存疑虑,他们也在为你加油:他们想要享受一场精彩演讲带来的思想交流,也希望你能从中获得乐趣。
  • ▪  Fi­nally, have fun. Some people are born per­formers. If that’s you, great. If not, still try to en­joy de­liv­er­ing your present­a­tion, for at least two reas­ons. First, you will think and per­form bet­ter be­cause you will be able to fo­cus on your ideas and your audi­ence’s re­sponses, rather be­ing dis­trac­ted by your own stress. And second, it’s ex­cru­ci­at­ing to watch a presenter who seems to be walk­ing over hot coals just to get to the end. Re­mem­ber, your audi­ence is pulling for you, even if they are skep­tical: they want to en­joy the in­tel­lec­tual give-and-take a good present­a­tion al­lows, and they want you to en­joy it as well.

第五部分

Part V

最后的一些考虑

Some Last Con­sid­er­a­tions

17 研究伦理

17  The Eth­ics of Re­search

本书中,我们提供了许多关于如何开展研究、如何构建和传播研究论点的实用建议。我们也分享了我们对所谓“研究事业”的理解:具体而言,我们认为研究是一项深刻的社会活动研究人员群体参与其中,与其他感兴趣的受众进行广泛的“对话”(有时是面对面的,有时是通过书面或发表的论点,有时是与同时代的人,有时是跨越几代人),共同追求更好地理解世界并找到更好的解决方案。现在,我们想与您分享一些所有研究人员都必须面对的伦理考量,希望随着您研究能力的提升,您能对这些问题进行更深入的思考。

In this book, we have offered a lot of prac­tical ad­vice about how to do re­search and make and com­mu­nic­ate re­search ar­gu­ments. We have also shared our no­tion of what might be called the en­ter­prise of re­search: spe­cific­ally, we see re­search as a pro­foundly so­cial activ­ity in which com­munit­ies of re­search­ers par­ti­cip­ate in ex­ten­ded “con­ver­sa­tions” (some­times in per­son and some­times through writ­ten or pub­lished ar­gu­ments, some­times with con­tem­por­ar­ies and some­times span­ning gen­er­a­tions) with each other and other in­ter­ested audi­ences in a com­mon pur­suit of a bet­ter un­der­stand­ing of the world and bet­ter solu­tions to its prob­lems. Now we want to share with you some eth­ical con­sid­er­a­tions all re­search­ers must con­front, hop­ing that as you grow as a re­searcher, you’ll give them more thought.

“伦理”一词源于希腊语“ethos”,意指社群的共同习俗或个人的品格,无论好坏。所有研究人员,从初学者到经验最丰富的教授,都面临着三重伦理义务:对自身的伦理义务、对特定受众和研究社群的伦理义务,以及对可能直接或间接受到其研究影响的其他人的伦理义务。

The term eth­ical comes from the Greek ethos, mean­ing either a com­munity’s shared cus­toms or an in­di­vidual’s char­ac­ter, good or bad. All re­search­ers, from the most novice stu­dents to the most ex­per­i­enced pro­fess­ors, face three sets of eth­ical ob­lig­a­tions: to them­selves, to their spe­cific audi­ences and re­search com­munit­ies, and to oth­ers who might be af­fected dir­ectly and in­dir­ectly by their re­search.

17.1  你对自己的道德义务

17.1  Your Eth­ical Ob­lig­a­tion to Your­self

你首要的道德义务是恪守个人诚信。从最基本的层面来说,这项义务可以表述为一系列“不可为之”的行为准则,我们在本书中对此进行了详尽的讨论:

Your first eth­ical ob­lig­a­tion is to con­duct your­self with per­sonal in­teg­rity. At its most ba­sic, this ob­lig­a­tion can be ex­pressed as a series of Thou shalt nots, which we have dis­cussed through­out this book:

  • ▪ 禁止抄袭。
  • ▪  Do not pla­gi­ar­ize.
  • ▪ 不要将他人的成果据为己有。
  • ▪  Do not claim credit for the res­ults of oth­ers.
  • ▪ 不得歪曲来源、捏造证据或伪造结果。
  • ▪  Do not mis­rep­res­ent sources, in­vent evid­ence, or fake res­ults.
  • ▪ 除非你明确说明,否则不要提交你不相信其准确性的证据。
  • ▪  Do not present evid­ence whose ac­cur­acy you don’t trust, un­less you say so.
  • ▪ 不要隐瞒你无法反驳的反对意见。
  • ▪  Do not con­ceal ob­jec­tions you can­not re­but.
  • ▪ 不要丑化或歪曲对立观点。
  • ▪  Do not ca­ri­ca­ture or dis­tort op­pos­ing views.
  • ▪ 不要销毁数据或证据,也不要隐瞒对后续人员重要的信息来源。
  • ▪  Do not des­troy data or evid­ence or con­ceal sources im­port­ant for those who fol­low.

我们相信您还能想到其他例子。将这些原则应用于显而易见的案例也很容易:比如伪造早期人类未知物种化石遗骸的考古学家,篡改组织样本图像以显示预期结果的医学研究人员,在部分车辆中安装软件以逃避排放测试并试图通过销毁数据掩盖真相的汽车制造商,当然还有从网上购买论文并冒充自己作品提交的学生。

We are sure you can think of oth­ers. It’s easy enough to ap­ply these prin­ciples to ob­vi­ous cases: the ar­chae­olo­gist who faked the fos­sil­ized re­mains of an un­known spe­cies of early hu­man, the med­ical re­search­ers who altered im­ages of tis­sue samples to show the res­ult they wanted, the car man­u­fac­turer that in­stalled soft­ware in some of its vehicles to en­able them to evade emis­sions tests—and then tried to cover it up by des­troy­ing data, and of course stu­dents who buy pa­pers on­line and sub­mit them as their own.

对于更为复杂的情况,理性的人在伦理判断上可能会有所不同。但个人诚信的义务始终存在,这既是出于其本身的考量,也是因为维护科研共同体赖以运转的信任感至关重要。得益于生成式人工智能等日益普及的技术及其不断扩展的能力,获取、处理、分析、创建乃至伪造信息乃至论点的能力空前强大。正因如此,对于研究人员而言,维护个人诚信比以往任何时候都更加重要。

About more com­plic­ated cases, reas­on­able people may dif­fer in their eth­ical judg­ments. But the ob­lig­a­tion of per­sonal in­teg­rity re­mains, both for its own sake and be­cause it is es­sen­tial to main­tain­ing the sense of trust that al­lows re­search com­munit­ies to func­tion. Thanks to ever-more ac­cess­ible tech­no­lo­gies such as gen­er­at­ive AI and their ever-ex­pand­ing ca­pa­cit­ies, the power to ac­cess, pro­cess, ana­lyze, cre­ate, and fake in­form­a­tion and even ar­gu­ments has never been greater. For this reason, it is, if any­thing, more im­port­ant than ever for re­search­ers to main­tain their per­sonal in­teg­rity.

17.2  你对听众和同行研究人员的道德义务

17.2  Your Eth­ical Ob­lig­a­tions to Your Audi­ence and Fel­low Re­search­ers

你接下来的伦理义务是对你的研究社群(如果你是学生,这包括你的同学和老师)、对更广泛的学者和研究人员社群,以及对你的受众——那些你在分享研究成果、观点和论证时所面对和提及的实际或想象中的社群。如果你和我们一样认同研究本质上是协作性的,那么你必须请思考您的选择和行为不仅会影响您自身,还会影响那些支持您的研究并希望从中受益的群体。为了履行您对这些群体的伦理义务,您必须超越简单的“禁止”原则,认真思考您应该积极做些什么。

Your next eth­ical ob­lig­a­tions are to your re­search com­munity (which, if you are a stu­dent, in­cludes your class­mates and teach­ers), to the broader com­munity of all schol­ars and re­search­ers, and to your audi­ence—those ac­tual and ima­gined com­munit­ies you ad­dress and in­voke when you share your find­ings, ideas, and ar­gu­ments. If you ac­cept, as we do, that re­search is in­her­ently col­lab­or­at­ive, then you must con­sider how your choices and ac­tions af­fect not just your­self but also those com­munit­ies that en­able and hope to be­ne­fit from your re­search. To ful­fill your eth­ical ob­lig­a­tions to these com­munit­ies, you must move bey­ond simple shalt nots to con­sider what you should af­firm­at­ively do.

  • ▪ 当你要求别人真诚地接受你的证据时,你也同时要求他们信任你,这为你的工作设定了一个比只影响你一个人时更高的标准。
  • ▪  When you ask oth­ers to ac­cept your evid­ence in good faith, you also ask for their trust, set­ting a stand­ard for your work higher than it might be if it af­fected you alone.
  • ▪ 当你向他人解释为什么你的研究应该改变他们的理解和信念时,你不仅要审视你自己的理解和兴趣,还要审视如果你说服他们改变他们的理解和信念,你对他们负有责任。
  • ▪  When you ex­plain to oth­ers why your re­search should change their un­der­stand­ing and be­liefs, you must ex­am­ine not only your own un­der­stand­ing and in­terests, but your re­spons­ib­il­ity to them if you con­vince them to change theirs.
  • ▪ 当你承认听众的不同观点,包括他们最强烈的反对意见和保留意见时,你不仅会更接近更可靠的知识、更好的理解和更健全的信念,而且还会更尊重他们的尊严和人类需求。
  • ▪  When you ac­know­ledge your audi­ence’s al­tern­at­ive views, in­clud­ing their strongest ob­jec­tions and re­ser­va­tions, you move closer not just to more re­li­able know­ledge, bet­ter un­der­stand­ing, and sounder be­liefs, but to hon­or­ing their dig­nity and hu­man needs.

当研究人员藐视这些义务时,他们不仅损害了自己的声誉,也损害了那些依赖他们研究成果的人的声誉。你或许认为篡改脚注或一些数据只是小错,但此类行为总是会削弱科研界赖以生存的信任,有时还会造成巨大的实际损失。例如,1998 年一项将麻疹、腮腺炎、风疹 (MMR) 疫苗与自闭症联系起来的研究是基于伪造的数据,但这项研究引发的对疫苗的质疑至今仍然存在。此外,由于药物试验存在欺诈或不道德行为,一些大型制药公司不得不将药物撤出市场,有时甚至支付巨额赔偿金。

When re­search­ers flout these ob­lig­a­tions, they harm not just their own repu­ta­tions but also those who de­pend on their work. You might think that fudging a foot­note or a bit of data is a minor of­fense, but such acts al­ways erode the trust on which re­search com­munit­ies de­pend and some­times they have sig­ni­fic­ant tan­gible costs. For ex­ample, a 1998 study link­ing the MMR (measles, mumps, ru­bella) vac­cine to aut­ism was based on fals­i­fied data, but the skep­ti­cism about vac­cines this study en­gendered per­sists. And sev­eral ma­jor phar­ma­ceut­ical com­pan­ies have had to with­draw drugs from the mar­ket, and some­times pay ma­jor fin­an­cial set­tle­ments, be­cause of fraud­u­lent or un­eth­ical drug tri­als.

所有研究人员都对受众和同行研究人员负有伦理义务,但对于那些可能影响他人研究方向、声誉乃至职业生涯的知名研究人员而言,这些义务更为重要。沃森和克里克,这两位描述了DNA双螺旋结构的科学家(参见6.2.2),他们所依赖的数据是由另外两位科学家莫里斯·威尔金斯和罗莎琳德·富兰克林提供的未发表数据,这些数据是克里克的导师未经明确许可就分享给他们的。沃森和克里克仅对威尔金斯和富兰克林的贡献表示了认可。至少,无论是在他们最初的文章中,还是在他们后来关于这项发现的著述中,都存在这种现象。即使沃森和克里克实际上并没有窃取富兰克林的数据(一些证据表明她可能默许了他们使用这些数据),他们对待她的方式无疑剥夺了她应得的全部荣誉和认可,因此可以被视为不道德的。

While all re­search­ers have eth­ical ob­lig­a­tions to their audi­ences and fel­low re­search­ers, these ob­lig­a­tions are el­ev­ated for es­tab­lished re­search­ers who may have the power to shape the re­search agen­das, repu­ta­tions, and even ca­reers of oth­ers. Wat­son and Crick, the pair of sci­ent­ists who de­scribed the double-helix struc­ture of DNA (see 6.2.2), re­lied on un­pub­lished data pro­duced by two other sci­ent­ists, Maurice Wilkins and Ros­alind Frank­lin, which had been shared with them by Crick’s su­per­visor without ex­pli­cit per­mis­sion. Wat­son and Crick ac­know­ledged Wilkins’s and Frank­lin’s con­tri­bu­tions only min­im­ally, both in their ori­ginal art­icle and in their later writ­ings about their dis­cov­ery. Even if Wat­son and Crick did not ac­tu­ally steal Frank­lin’s data (some evid­ence sug­gests that she may have ta­citly ac­ceded to their use of it), their treat­ment of her cer­tainly de­prived her of the full credit and re­cog­ni­tion she de­served and may there­fore be re­garded as un­eth­ical.

正是出于对共同研究成果的关注,才使得研究人员如此强烈地谴责剽窃行为。剽窃不仅是盗窃,更是窃取他人的劳动成果。歪曲文献来源或窃取他人劳动成果(无论该成果是其他研究人员完成的、从网上购买的,还是利用人工智能技术生成的),都是在窃取诚实研究人员应得的微薄荣誉,窃取那些他们毕生努力追求的尊重。而剽窃不仅会损害个体研究人员的利益,还会降低研究的价值,侵蚀研究赖以生存的互信,从而削弱整个研究共同体。

It is this con­cern for the com­mon work of a com­munity that un­der­scores why, for ex­ample, re­search­ers con­demn pla­gi­ar­ism so strongly. Pla­gi­ar­ism is theft, but of more than words. To mis­rep­res­ent a source or to take credit for work that is not one’s own (whether that work was done by an­other re­searcher, pur­chased on­line, or gen­er­ated with AI tech­no­logy) is to steal the mod­est re­cog­ni­tion that hon­est re­search­ers should re­ceive, the re­spect that some spend a life­time striv­ing to earn. And that, in turn, weak­ens re­search com­munit­ies not just by harm­ing in­di­vidual re­search­ers but also by re­du­cing the value of re­search and erod­ing the mu­tual trust on which re­search de­pends.

这适用于所有研究群体,包括本科课堂。抄袭的学生不仅窃取了参考文献,也通过贬低自己的作品来损害了其他同学的利益。当这种学术剽窃行为变得普遍时,整个群体就会产生怀疑,进而产生不信任,最终变得愤世嫉俗:人人都这么做,我不这么做就会落后。教师们不仅要担心教学,还要担心自己被学生欺骗。最终,抄袭的学生不仅损害了自己的教育,也损害了整个社会的利益——社会投入资源培养他们,是为了让他们将来能够从事诚实可靠的工作,而这些工作正是整个社会赖以生存的。

This is true for all re­search com­munit­ies, in­clud­ing the un­der­gradu­ate classroom. Stu­dents who pla­gi­ar­ize steal not only from their sources but from their fel­low stu­dents by mak­ing their work seem lesser by com­par­ison. When such in­tel­lec­tual thiev­ery be­comes com­mon, the com­munity grows sus­pi­cious, then dis­trust­ful, then cyn­ical: Every­one does it. I’ll fall be­hind if I don’t. Teach­ers must then worry about be­ing tricked as well as about teach­ing and learn­ing. Ul­ti­mately, stu­dents who pla­gi­ar­ize do not just com­prom­ise their own edu­ca­tions; they also steal from the lar­ger so­ci­ety that de­votes its re­sources to train­ing them to do hon­est, re­li­able work later, work that the lar­ger so­ci­ety will de­pend on.

简而言之,当你以符合伦理的方式进行研究并分享研究成果时——当你尊重信息来源,保存并承认与你的研究结果相悖的证据,只在必要时提出主张,承认你的确定性存在局限性,并履行你对研究界和受众的所有其他伦理义务时——你不仅为社会的集体知识和理解做出了贡献,而且还为社会赖以解决其最紧迫问题的信任体系做出了贡献。

In short, when you con­duct your re­search and share its res­ults eth­ic­ally—when you re­spect sources, pre­serve and ac­know­ledge evid­ence that run against your res­ults, as­sert claims only as strongly as they de­serve, ac­know­ledge the lim­its of your cer­tainty, and meet all the other eth­ical ob­lig­a­tions you have to your re­search com­munity and audi­ence—you con­trib­ute not just to so­ci­ety’s col­lect­ive know­ledge and un­der­stand­ing but also to the fab­ric of trust that en­ables the re­search on which so­ci­ety de­pends to ad­dress its most press­ing prob­lems.

17.3  研究与社会责任

17.3  Re­search and So­cial Re­spons­ib­il­ity

你最终的伦理义务是针对你研究群体之外的人。这些义务延伸到那些可能受到你研究影响的人,不仅包括研究结果,还包括你提出的问题以及你解答这些问题的方式:

Your fi­nal eth­ical ob­lig­a­tions are to those out­side your own re­search com­munity. They ex­tend to those who could po­ten­tially be af­fected by your re­search, not just by its res­ults but also by the ques­tions you ask and how you go about an­swer­ing them:

  • ▪ 致那些直接或间接帮助您进行研究的人(帮助您的图书馆员、实验室助理、翻译、转录员和信息技术人员;资助您的学术机构、基金会和纳税人)
  • ▪  to those who dir­ectly or in­dir­ectly fa­cil­it­ate your re­search (the lib­rar­i­ans, lab as­sist­ants, trans­lat­ors, tran­scrip­tion­ists, and in­form­a­tion tech­no­lo­gists who help you; the aca­demic in­sti­tu­tions, found­a­tions, and tax­pay­ers who fund you)
  • ▪ 致那些可能成为您研究对象的人(口述历史项目中的受访者、民族志研究中的线人、实验参与者)
  • ▪  to those who may be your re­search sub­jects (in­ter­viewees in an oral his­tory pro­ject, in­form­ants in eth­no­graphic re­search, par­ti­cipants in an ex­per­i­ment)
  • ▪ 即使是对那些没有参与你的研究,但却可能因此受到影响的人来说也是如此。
  • ▪  even to those who are not in­volved in your re­search but who nev­er­the­less may be touched by it

你的道德义务包括承认你从研究群体之外的人那里获得的支持,并以感激和尊重的态度对待这些支持你的人。但你的道德义务也远不止于此,它还延伸到维护人类尊严的层面。

Your eth­ical ob­lig­a­tions in­clude the ob­lig­a­tion to re­cog­nize the sup­port you re­ceive from those out­side your re­search com­munity and to treat those who sup­port you with grat­it­ude and re­spect. But they also ex­tend bey­ond this ob­lig­a­tion to hu­man de­cency.

有些研究人员为了追求自身目标或出于傲慢自大,明知故犯地采用胁迫或欺骗性的研究方法。这样的研究人员显然是不道德的。然而,即使是那些个人道德水平最高的研究人员,也可能过于专注于自身的研究项目和优先事项,以及其研究群体的利益,而忽视其研究项目可能存在的剥削性影响以及对他人造成的负面影响,尤其当这些影响对象属于少数群体或边缘群体时。

Some re­search­ers, in pur­suit of their goals or from simple hubris, know­ingly ad­opt re­search prac­tices that are co­er­cive or de­cept­ive. Such re­search­ers are clearly un­eth­ical. But even the most per­son­ally eth­ical re­search­ers can be so fo­cused on their pro­jects and pri­or­it­ies, and those of their re­search com­munit­ies, that they dis­count the po­ten­tially ex­ploit­at­ive di­men­sions and ad­verse ef­fects of their pro­jects on oth­ers, es­pe­cially when those oth­ers be­long to groups that have been minor­it­ized or mar­gin­al­ized in some way.

因此,参与开展和支持研究的学院、大学和其他机构都设立了委员会,负责审查拟议的研究项目,以确保其符合伦理规范。这些委员会名称各异,例如人体受试者委员会、机构审查委员会、伦理研究委员会等等,但它们的目标都是确保研究人员遵循适用于医学研究的准则:不伤害。如果您要收集来自人体的数据——无论是通过访谈、调查,还是仅仅观察——都应咨询相关委员会。

For this reason, col­leges, uni­ver­sit­ies, and other bod­ies in­volved in con­duct­ing and sup­port­ing re­search have cre­ated com­mit­tees to re­view pro­posed pro­jects to en­sure that they are eth­ic­ally de­signed. These com­mit­tees go by dif­fer­ent names—Hu­man Sub­jects Com­mit­tee, In­sti­tu­tional Re­view Board, Eth­ics Re­search Board, and so on—but they all aim to en­sure that re­search­ers fol­low the maxim that should gov­ern re­search as it does medi­cine: Do no harm. Con­sult with that com­mit­tee if you gather data from people—whether by in­ter­view­ing, sur­vey­ing, or per­haps even just ob­serving them.

许多专业组织和学术期刊也制定了伦理研究原则,要求其成员和作者遵守。例如, 《美国医学会杂志》(JAMA)作为一份重要的医学研究期刊,制定了旨在促进种族和民族数据报告透明度和公平性的指导方针。《自然》作为自然科学领域的顶级期刊之一,谴责了诸如“直升机式研究”(即享有特权的科研人员在边缘化或弱势群体中开展研究,却很少征求这些群体成员的意见)和“伦理倾销”(即享有特权的科研人员将研究或实验安排在边缘化或弱势群体或伦理标准或监管可能较为宽松的地区)等做法。关键在于,伦理研究不仅仅是个人问题;它还要求科研人员承认、考虑,甚至努力减轻可能影响其研究项目和发现的系统性权力与特权差异。

Many pro­fes­sional or­gan­iz­a­tions and aca­demic journ­als have also ad­op­ted prin­ciples of eth­ical re­search to which their mem­bers and au­thors are ex­pec­ted to ad­here. For ex­ample, JAMA, a ma­jor med­ical re­search journal, has ad­op­ted guidelines that pro­mote trans­par­ency and equity in the re­port­ing of data con­cern­ing race and eth­ni­city. And Nature, one of the premier journ­als in the nat­ural sci­ences, has con­demned prac­tices such as heli­copter re­search (when priv­ileged re­search­ers pur­sue stud­ies in mar­gin­al­ized or oth­er­wise dis­em­powered com­munit­ies with little in­put from the mem­bers of those com­munit­ies) and eth­ics dump­ing (when priv­ileged re­search­ers loc­ate stud­ies or ex­per­i­ments in mar­gin­al­ized or dis­em­powered com­munit­ies or geo­graph­ical re­gions likely to have re­laxed eth­ical stand­ards or over­sight). The point is, eth­ical re­search is more than a per­sonal mat­ter; it also re­quires re­search­ers to ac­know­ledge, con­sider, and even work to mit­ig­ate sys­temic dif­fer­ences of power and priv­ilege that may shape and in­flu­ence their pro­jects and find­ings.

如果你还是学生,你可能会觉得这些问题与你无关。但你错了。即使是学生,你所选择的研究课题、提出的研究问题以及采用的研究方法都涉及伦理层面。没有简单的公式可以告诉你你的研究项目是否符合伦理。相反,你必须批判性地审视你的项目,不仅要从研究目标出发,还要从伦理原则出发,也就是说,你需要能够论证你的项目符合伦理。

If you are still a stu­dent, you might think that these con­cerns are not rel­ev­ant to you. You would be wrong. Even as a stu­dent, the re­search prob­lems you take up, the re­search ques­tions you ask, and the re­search meth­ods you em­ploy have eth­ical di­men­sions. There is no simple for­mula that can tell you whether or not your re­search pro­ject is eth­ical. Rather, you must crit­ic­ally ex­am­ine your pro­ject not only in light of your re­search goals but also in light of your eth­ical prin­ciples, which is to say, you need to be able to ar­gue that it is eth­ical.

第八章中,我们讨论了论证依据,即那些为不同领域研究论证的逻辑或推理提供正当性的普遍原则。我们指出,论证依据通常可以表述为“X时,则Y”,其中X代表某种普遍情况,Y代表某种普遍结果。如果你的具体情况符合该普遍情况,那么你的具体结论就是该普遍结果的体现。以下是一些你可以用来检验你的研究问题、疑问和项目是否符合伦理的论证依据:

In chapter 8, we dis­cussed war­rants, those gen­eral prin­ciples that jus­tify the lo­gic or reas­on­ing of re­search ar­gu­ments in dif­fer­ent fields. We noted that war­rants can usu­ally be phrased When X, then Y, where X is some gen­eral cir­cum­stance and Y is some gen­eral con­sequence. If your spe­cific cir­cum­stance is a good in­stance of that gen­eral cir­cum­stance, then your spe­cific con­clu­sion will be an in­stance of its gen­eral con­sequence. Here are some war­rants you can ap­ply to test your re­search prob­lems, ques­tions, and pro­jects to judge their eth­ics:

  • ▪ 当研究依赖于欺骗时,它(可能)是不道德的。
  • ▪  When re­search re­lies on de­cep­tion, it is (pos­sibly) un­eth­ical.
  • ▪ 当研究利用研究者和受试者之间的权力差异时,这(可能)是不道德的。
  • ▪  When re­search ex­ploits a power dif­fer­en­tial between re­search­ers and sub­jects, it is (pos­sibly) un­eth­ical.
  • ▪ 当研究利用社会经济或地缘政治权力差异时(例如,在发展中国家进行危险的实验),这(可能)是不道德的。
  • ▪  When re­search ex­ploits a so­cioeco­nomic or geo­pol­it­ical power dif­fer­en­tial (e.g., do­ing dan­ger­ous ex­per­i­ments in de­vel­op­ing coun­tries), it is (pos­sibly) un­eth­ical.
  • ▪ 当研究有可能对个人、社会或环境造成伤害时,它(可能)是不道德的。
  • ▪  When re­search has the po­ten­tial to harm in­di­vidu­als, so­ci­et­ies, or the en­vir­on­ment, it is (pos­sibly) un­eth­ical.

还有很多其他方面。再次强调,关于研究伦理的决策,尤其从社会责任的角度出发,可能非常复杂,即使是理性的人也可能持有不同的判断。你的责任是认真权衡项目的伦理考量并做出决定。

There are many oth­ers. Again, de­cisions about the eth­ics of re­search, es­pe­cially from the per­spect­ive of so­cial re­spons­ib­il­ity, can be com­plex, and reas­on­able people may dif­fer in their judg­ments. Your re­spons­ib­il­ity is to weigh care­fully your pro­ject’s eth­ical con­sid­er­a­tions and de­cide.

17.4  最后思考

17.4  A Fi­nal Thought

我们希望,通过阅读本书,您不仅能掌握一系列实用技能,还能深刻理解真实且符合伦理的研究对自身及他人的重要意义。如今信息空前丰富、无处不在且易于获取,这已是众所周知的事实。然而,我们的社会也面临着一个焦虑:所有这些信息能否引导我们获得更深层次的东西——知识、理解、同情和智慧?正是在这种背景下,本书旨在帮助您培养以下能力:进行严谨细致的研究;以严谨、清晰且尊重他人观点和视角的方式进行思考和论证;以及清晰易懂地进行沟通。这些能力远不止是学业或职场成功的关键,更是当今公民最重要的能力之一。

We hope that, in work­ing your way through this book, you have de­veloped not just a set of use­ful skills but also a sense of the broader stakes of au­then­tic and eth­ical re­search for your­self and oth­ers. It’s a com­mon­place that in­form­a­tion has never been more abund­ant, ubi­quit­ous, and ac­cess­ible. But our so­ci­ety also suf­fers from an anxi­ety over whether all that in­form­a­tion can lead us to some­thing more: know­ledge, un­der­stand­ing, sym­pathy, wis­dom. In this con­text, the abil­it­ies this book was writ­ten to help you cul­tiv­ate—to do care­ful and thor­ough re­search; to think and ar­gue rig­or­ously, co­gently, and with a sens­it­iv­ity to the ideas and per­spect­ives of oth­ers; and to com­mu­nic­ate clearly and un­der­stand­ably—are much more than keys to suc­cess in school or on the job. They are among the most im­port­ant abil­it­ies a cit­izen of our cur­rent cen­tury can ac­quire.

给教师的18条建议

18  Ad­vice for Teach­ers

在最后一章中,我们想特别谈谈我们的读者群体:那些在课堂上使用本书的教师。在前十七章中,我们提供了许多关于如何进行研究、构建论点以及如何通过论文和演讲与他人交流的建议。在这里,我们想再次重申所有这些建议背后的信念,并探讨它们对教学的一些启示。我们的观点和建议源于我们自身的学习和研究,以及我们多年的教学经验。如果您不是教师,我们希望您至少能浏览一下本章,因为这样做或许能帮助您从他人的教学中获益,或者帮助您自己成为一名更优秀的学习者。

In this fi­nal chapter, we want to ad­dress a par­tic­u­lar sub­set of our read­ers: the teach­ers who use our book in their classes with their stu­dents. In the pre­ced­ing sev­en­teen chapters, we have offered much ad­vice about how to do re­search, de­velop ar­gu­ments, and then com­mu­nic­ate them to oth­ers in pa­pers and present­a­tions. Here, we want to ac­know­ledge once again the con­vic­tions that in­form all of this ad­vice and ex­plore some of their im­plic­a­tions for teach­ing. Our per­spect­ives and sug­ges­tions are born of our own study and re­search as well as our years of ex­per­i­ence as teach­ers ourselves. If you are not a teacher, we hope that you will at least eaves­drop by skim­ming this chapter, since do­ing so may help you be­ne­fit from an­other’s teach­ing, or to be­come a bet­ter learner your­self.

我们在前言中指出,我们认为研究、论证和交流(无论是书面还是口头)本质上都是集体活动。我们还强调,我们坚信,这些活动所需的技能可以进行系统教授,并且只要给予适当的指导和支持,任何人都能学会。这些信念或原则不仅对开展和交流研究具有重要意义,对研究教学也同样重要。

In our pre­face, we noted that we see re­search, ar­gu­ment­a­tion, and com­mu­nic­a­tion (whether writ­ten or oral) as ne­ces­sar­ily com­munal activ­it­ies. We fur­ther noted our strong be­lief that the skills that en­able these activ­it­ies can be taught ex­pli­citly and that, given proper in­struc­tion and sup­port, any­one can learn them. These con­vic­tions or prin­ciples have im­port­ant im­plic­a­tions not just for do­ing and com­mu­nic­at­ing re­search but also for teach­ing it.

我们认为,当学生能够将他们的研究工作置于丰富的社群和修辞语境中时,他们就能最好地学习如何开展和交流研究——也就是说,当他们的项目真正为……做出贡献时。增进学生对真实受众或研究群体(即使对初学者而言,这个群体仅限于同龄人)的理解,并让他们能够为特定、可识别的受众撰写文章或进行演讲(同样,即使对初学者而言,他们的受众仅限于同龄人),这对他们的学习大有裨益。我们还认为,在学习如何开展和交流研究的过程中,学生不仅能从研究方法、流程和技巧的明确指导中获益匪浅,还能从研究论证的形式特征以及各领域中用于交流此类论证的文体方面获益良多。

Stu­dents, we be­lieve, best learn to do and com­mu­nic­ate re­search when they are able to ground their work in rich com­munal and rhet­or­ical con­texts—that is, when their pro­jects genu­inely con­trib­ute to ad­van­cing the un­der­stand­ing of a real audi­ence or re­search com­munity (even if, for be­gin­ners, that is only the com­munity of their im­me­di­ate peers) and when they are able to write for or present to spe­cific, iden­ti­fi­able audi­ences (again, even if for be­gin­ners, their audi­ence con­sists of their im­me­di­ate peers). We fur­ther be­lieve that when learn­ing to do and com­mu­nic­ate re­search, stu­dents be­ne­fit im­mensely from ex­pli­cit in­struc­tion not just in the meth­ods, pro­ced­ures, and tech­niques they will need to know to do their re­search but also in the formal fea­tures of re­search ar­gu­ments and of the genres through which such ar­gu­ments are com­mu­nic­ated in their fields.

18.1  强制实施正式规则的风险

18.1  The Risks of Im­pos­ing Formal Rules

然而,过分强调形式特征也存在风险,尤其对于新手研究者而言。形式结构很容易沦为空洞的机械练习。那些只教舞者如何跳舞、只教钢琴家如何找到正确琴键的人,剥夺了他们体验舞蹈或音乐深层乐趣的机会。同样,那些把研究仅仅当作学习脚注和参考文献格式的人,剥夺了学生发现的乐趣,甚至可能扼杀一些原本可以凭借优秀研究造福世界的年轻人。

Em­phas­iz­ing formal fea­tures, though, has its risks, es­pe­cially with new re­search­ers. It is easy to re­duce formal struc­ture to empty drill. Those who teach dan­cers only to ex­ecute their steps or pi­an­ists only to find the right keys de­prive their charges of the deep pleas­ures of dance or mu­sic. Those who teach re­search as if it were merely learn­ing the proper forms for foot­notes and bib­li­o­graph­ies de­prive their stu­dents of the pleas­ures of dis­cov­ery, per­haps dis­cour­aging some who might oth­er­wise have blessed the world with their own good re­search.

如果向学生展示了如何以正确的精神进行研究,那么论证的形式特征就成为激发和奖励深入思考的问题的答案。这有助于学生认识到研究者与资料来源和学科同行之间关系中哪些方面至关重要。这种认识是开展创造性和原创性研究的先决条件。

If stu­dents are shown how to ap­proach re­search in the right spirit, the formal fea­tures of ar­gu­ment be­come an­swers to ques­tions that stim­u­late and re­ward hard think­ing. They help stu­dents re­cog­nize what is im­port­ant in re­search­ers’ re­la­tion­ships with their sources and dis­cip­lin­ary col­leagues. This re­cog­ni­tion is a pre­requis­ite to cre­at­ive and ori­ginal re­search.

缺乏意义的形式会助长空洞的模仿,尤其当教师未能于课堂上营造一种修辞语境,使学生能够生动地体验到他们作为研究者的社会角色时,即便最初只是通过模拟或角色扮演的方式。任何教科书都无法完全创造这种语境,因为它需要课堂体验,而这只有富有想象力的教师才能精心策划。

Forms empty of mean­ing en­cour­age empty im­it­a­tion, es­pe­cially when teach­ers fail to cre­ate in their classrooms a rhet­or­ical con­text that dram­at­izes for stu­dents their so­cial role as re­search­ers, even if at first only in sim­u­la­tion or role-play­ing. No text­book can fully cre­ate that con­text be­cause it re­quires a class ex­per­i­ence that only ima­gin­at­ive teach­ers can or­ches­trate.

只有当教师了解自己的学生时,才能设计出能够创造情境的作业,使学生的学习活动具有意义和目的,并使学生的期望得以实现。认识并理解。学生经验越少,教师就必须提供越多的支持,才能帮助学生有效地运用正式的语法结构。

Only when teach­ers un­der­stand their par­tic­u­lar stu­dents can they de­vise as­sign­ments that cre­ate situ­ations whose so­cial dy­namic gives point and pur­pose to re­search and whose ex­pect­a­tions stu­dents can re­cog­nize and un­der­stand. The less ex­per­i­ence stu­dents have, the more sup­port teach­ers must provide be­fore their stu­dents can use formal struc­tures in pro­duct­ive ways.

18.2  关于任务场景:营造好奇心氛围

18.2  On As­sign­ment Scen­arios: Cre­at­ing a Ground for Curi­os­ity

教师们已经找到了许多方法来设计研究作业,为学生提供必要的支持。最成功的作业具有以下特点:

Teach­ers have found many ways to con­struct re­search as­sign­ments that give stu­dents this ne­ces­sary sup­port. The most suc­cess­ful have these fea­tures:

好的作业不仅要评估最终成果,更要设定明确的学习目标。优秀的教师会引导学生提出他们想要解答的问题,并用合理的理由和可靠的证据来支持他们的答案。好的研究作业则会引导学生将这种个人兴趣转化为一种公共兴趣,让他们能够体验(或者至少想象)一个需要他们所提供的理解的受众群体。

1. Good as­sign­ments es­tab­lish out­comes bey­ond a product to be eval­u­ated. Good teach­ers ask stu­dents to pose ques­tions that they want to an­swer and to sup­port their an­swers with sound reas­ons and solid evid­ence. Good re­search as­sign­ments then ask stu­dents to trans­late that per­sonal in­terest into a com­munal one, so that they can ex­per­i­ence, or at least ima­gine, an audi­ence that needs the un­der­stand­ing only they can provide.

最好的作业要求学生面向真正需要了解或更好地理解某些内容的受众。例如,高年级设计课的学生可以探讨当地公司或公民组织的问题;音乐课的学生可以撰写节目单;历史课的学生可以探究大学或当地机构的起源。

The best as­sign­ments ask stu­dents to ad­dress audi­ences who genu­inely need to know or un­der­stand some­thing bet­ter. A senior design class, for ex­ample, might ad­dress a prob­lem of a local com­pany or civic or­gan­iz­a­tion; a mu­sic class might write pro­gram notes; a his­tory class might in­vest­ig­ate the ori­gins of some part of their uni­ver­sity or a local in­sti­tu­tion.

经验不足的学生可以为同学或其他班级的学生撰写或展示研究成果,这些学生可能需要初级研究者提供的信息。他们可以为高年级设计专业的学生进行初步研究,甚至可以为高中生做报告。

Less ex­per­i­enced stu­dents might write or present for their class­mates or for stu­dents in an­other class who could use the in­form­a­tion that a be­gin­ning re­searcher could provide. They might do pre­lim­in­ary re­search for those senior design stu­dents or even give present­a­tions to stu­dents still in high school.

其次,可以布置一些模拟此类情境的作业,让学生设想一个受众群体——例如其他学生、其他研究人员、社区合作伙伴——他们有一个学生研究员可以解决的问题。在大班授课中,学生可以分组合作,小组成员扮演受众角色,他们的兴趣点是初级研究员能够合理解决的。

Next best are as­sign­ments that sim­u­late such situ­ations, in which stu­dents ima­gine an audi­ence—for ex­ample, other stu­dents, other re­search­ers, com­munity part­ners—that has a prob­lem the stu­dent re­searcher can solve. In large classes, stu­dents can work in small groups whose mem­bers serve as an audi­ence with in­terests that be­gin­ning re­search­ers can reas­on­ably ad­dress.

2. 好的作业能帮助学生了解他们的受众或读者。大多数人,包括学生在内,都很难想象自己从未见过、也未曾了解其处境的受众会如何看待自己。从未有过相关经验的生物学学生,如果缺乏与政府机构合作的知识或经验,不太可能撰写出一份令州环保署署长满意的报告。但你仍然可以鼓励学生设身处地地想象他们的受众。或者,你也可以让学生自己决定需要解决哪些问题、需要解答哪些疑问,从而使整个班级成为他们自己的受众。如果学生能够明确自己感兴趣的问题,他们就能成为彼此研究的最佳受众。

2. Good as­sign­ments help stu­dents learn about their audi­ence or read­ers. Most people, stu­dents in­cluded, have trouble ima­gin­ing audi­ences whom they have never met and whose situ­ations they have never ex­per­i­enced. Bio­logy stu­dents with no know­ledge or ex­per­i­ence work­ing with a gov­ern­ment agency will be un­likely to write a plaus­ible re­port that meets the con­cerns of a state EPA ad­min­is­trator. But you can still urge stu­dents to ima­gine that audi­ence. Al­tern­at­ively, you can turn the class into its own audi­ence by let­ting stu­dents de­cide what prob­lems need solv­ing, what ques­tions need an­swer­ing. If stu­dents can define the prob­lems they’re in­ter­ested in, they will make the best pos­sible audi­ences for one an­other’s re­search.

3. 好的作业会创造包含丰富背景信息的场景。植根于丰富社会背景的作业能为学生提供最佳机会,让他们创作出有深度、有意义的作品。但即便将作业置于真实情境中不切实际,也应该尽可能地构建一个包含想象情境的场景。我们不可能预料到学生可能需要了解的所有信息,因此将分析和讨论融入研究过程至关重要。这样做有助于学生学习做出具有修辞意义的选择,即那些能够预见并旨在塑造受众反应的选择。如果作业缺乏真正的背景或过于程式化,学生就只能机械地完成任务。

3. Good as­sign­ments cre­ate scen­arios that are rich in con­tex­tual in­form­a­tion. As­sign­ments groun­ded in rich so­cial con­texts give stu­dents the best op­por­tun­ity to pro­duce work that has depth and mean­ing. But even when it is im­prac­tical to ground an as­sign­ment in a real con­text, you should still cre­ate a scen­ario that provides as much of an ima­gined con­text as pos­sible. It is im­possible to an­ti­cip­ate everything stu­dents might need to know about such a scen­ario, so it is im­port­ant to in­teg­rate ana­lysis and dis­cus­sion of it into the re­search pro­cess. When you do that, you help stu­dents learn to make rhet­or­ic­ally sig­ni­fic­ant choices, that is, choices that an­ti­cip­ate and aim to shape an audi­ence’s re­sponses. When stu­dents have no real choices be­cause an as­sign­ment is thinly con­tex­tu­al­ized or overly scrip­ted, they can only do mech­an­ical make-work.

4. 好的作业会提供阶段性反馈。很少有专业研究人员会在征求信任的人对作品的反馈之前就认为项目完成。学生更需要反馈。鼓励学生尽早向同伴、朋友、家人、导师,甚至你本人征求反馈。同时,在作业本身中也设置反馈环节。其他学生也能胜任“反馈者”的角色,但如果他们认为自己的任务仅仅是“编辑”——对他们来说,这通常意味着修改句子顺序或纠正拼写错误——那就行不通了。让学生反馈者完成第四部分中的一些步骤;你甚至可以组建反馈小组,每个小组负责文本的特定部分。

4. Good as­sign­ments provide in­terim re­spon­ders. Few pro­fes­sional re­search­ers con­sider a pro­ject fin­ished be­fore they have so­li­cited re­sponses to their work from people they trust. Stu­dents need re­sponses even more. En­cour­age stu­dents to so­li­cit early re­sponses from peers, friends, fam­ily, ment­ors, even from you. And build op­por­tun­it­ies for re­sponse into your as­sign­ments them­selves. Other stu­dents can play the role of “re­spon­der” reas­on­ably well, but not if they think that their task is just “edit­ing”—which for them of­ten means re­arran­ging a sen­tence here and fix­ing a mis­spelling there. Have stu­dent re­spon­ders work through some of the steps in part IV; you can even cre­ate teams of re­spon­ders, each with re­spons­ib­il­ity for spe­cific fea­tures of the text.

5. 好的作业会给学生留出时间,并设定阶段性截止日期。研究本身就是一件繁琐的事情,所以让学生按部就班地完成以下步骤毫无意义:(1)选择主题,(2)提出论点,(3)撰写提纲,(4)收集参考文献,(5)阅读并做笔记,(6)撰写论文。这种做法是对真实研究的简单概括。但学生需要一些框架,一份任务计划表,以帮助他们监控自己的进度。他们需要时间来应对失败和停滞不前,进行修改和重新思考。他们需要阶段性的截止日期和阶段性成果分享与评估。这些阶段可以反映本书中概述的各种步骤。

5. Good as­sign­ments give stu­dents time and a sched­ule of in­terim dead­lines. Re­search is messy, so it does no good to march stu­dents through it lock­step: (1) se­lect topic, (2) state thesis, (3) write out­line, (4) col­lect bib­li­o­graphy, (5) read and take notes, (6) write pa­per. That ca­ri­ca­tures au­then­tic re­search. But stu­dents need some frame­work, a sched­ule of tasks that helps them mon­itor their pro­gress. They need time for false starts and dead ends, for re­vi­sion and re­con­sid­er­a­tion. They need in­terim dead­lines and stages for shar­ing and as­sess­ing their pro­gress and work. Those stages can re­flect the vari­ous se­quences out­lined in this book.

6. 好的作业能够鼓励符合伦理的研究和写作实践。这并非仅仅依靠劝诫,而是精心设计的结果。好的作业引导学生进行有意义且真实的作业,从而降低作弊的诱惑:当学生发现自己的作业真正有意义时,他们自然会愿意去做。精心设计的作业和精心安排的课堂也能使作弊变得不切实际。例如,一位教师如果在课堂上营造丰富的社会和修辞语境,也能有效防止学生不道德地使用生成式人工智能,因为支撑这些技术的庞大语言模型无法很好地捕捉局部语境或课堂讨论的内容。

6. Good as­sign­ments en­cour­age eth­ical re­search and writ­ing prac­tices. They do this not simply by ex­horta­tion but by design. By lead­ing stu­dents to do mean­ing­ful and au­then­tic work, good as­sign­ments lessen the tempta­tion to cheat: when stu­dents find their work genu­inely mean­ing­ful, they will be in­clined to do it. Thought­ful as­sign­ments and well-or­ches­trated classes also make cheat­ing im­prac­tical. For ex­ample, a teacher who es­tab­lishes a rich so­cial and rhet­or­ical con­text in a class also guards against the un­eth­ical use of gen­er­at­ive AI be­cause the large lan­guage mod­els that en­able these tech­no­lo­gies don’t cap­ture local con­texts well or class dis­cus­sions at all.

18.3  接受学习过程中不可避免的混乱

18.3  Ac­cept­ing the In­ev­it­able Messi­ness of Learn­ing

学生们也确实需要——有时甚至是迫切需要——其他类型的支持,特别是要让他们明白自己应该达到什么水平,以及对即使是经验丰富的研究人员也会犯的可预见的错误给予宽容。初学者会表现得笨拙,把建议和原则当作僵化的规则,机械地套用。他们从一个主题入手,从一个问题入手,再到图书馆的在线目录,最后浏览几个网站,如此反复,最终却得出一个站不住脚的结论。这并非因为他们缺乏想象力或创造力,而是因为他们正在努力掌握一项对他们来说极其陌生的技能。这种笨拙是学习任何技能过程中不可避免的阶段。它会过去,但往往是在他们开始学习其他课程之后。

Stu­dents also ser­i­ously—some­times des­per­ately—need other kinds of sup­port, es­pe­cially re­cog­ni­tion of what can be ex­pec­ted of them and tol­er­ance for the pre­dict­able mis­steps of even ex­per­i­enced re­search­ers. Be­gin­ners be­have in awk­ward ways, tak­ing sug­ges­tions and prin­ciples as in­flex­ible rules that they ap­ply mech­an­ic­ally. They work through a topic to a ques­tion to their lib­rary’s on­line cata­log to a few web­sites, march­ing on and on to a weak con­clu­sion, not be­cause they lack ima­gin­a­tion or cre­ativ­ity, but be­cause they are strug­gling to ac­quire a skill that to them is sur­pass­ingly strange. Such awk­ward­ness is an in­ev­it­able stage in learn­ing any skill. It passes, but too of­ten only after they have moved on to other classes.

我们自己也必须学会对学生保持耐心,等待他们最终获得真正的原创性——我们知道,这种成就很可能在我们离开之后才会到来。我们努力让学生相信,即使他们最终没有解决问题,只要他们能提出一个令我们信服的问题,让我们相信这个问题是全新的(至少对他们而言),并且确实需要解决方案,那么他们就已经成功了。我们知道,有些学生在接到研究任务时,他们只会收集关于某个主题的信息,而不是去寻找真正重要的问题。你可以通过创造条件,鼓励这类学生追随自己的好奇心,并与他人分享他们的发现,从而帮助他们更好地理解真正研究的本质。

We ourselves have had to learn to be pa­tient with stu­dents, as we wait for the delayed grat­i­fic­a­tion that comes when they ar­rive at genu­ine ori­gin­al­ity—know­ing it will likely ar­rive when we are no longer there to see it. We try to as­sure stu­dents that even if they do not solve their prob­lem, they suc­ceed if they can pose a prob­lem in a way that con­vinces us that it is new—at least to them—and ar­gu­ably needs a solu­tion. We know that some stu­dents, when given a re­search as­sign­ment, will simply gather in­form­a­tion on a topic rather than seek out a sig­ni­fic­ant prob­lem. You can help such stu­dents bet­ter un­der­stand the es­sence of au­then­tic re­search by cre­at­ing con­di­tions that en­cour­age them to fol­low their nat­ural curi­os­ity and to share what they dis­cover with oth­ers.

最后,我们相信并鼓励您根据您学生的具体情况调整本书中介绍的原则和方法。您最了解他们,而且和所有学生一样,他们会从一位知识渊博、能力出众且富有同情心的老师那里受益匪浅,这位老师能够满足他们的需求。

Fi­nally, we trust and en­cour­age you to ad­apt the prin­ciples and pro­ced­ures that we have presen­ted in this book to fit your par­tic­u­lar stu­dents. You know them best, and like all stu­dents, they will be­ne­fit enorm­ously from a teacher who know­ledge­ably, cap­ably, and com­pas­sion­ately re­sponds to their needs.

我们的债务

Our Debts

来自JB和WF:这版《研究的艺术》是我们修订的第二个版本,我们首先要感谢本书的三位原作者:韦恩·C·布斯、格雷戈里·G·科伦布和约瑟夫·M·威廉姆斯。他们通过自身的研究、写作和教学,使一代又一代的学生、同事和读者受益匪浅——当然也包括我们。在为新一代读者修订本书的过程中,我们有机会再次向他们学习,对此我们深表感激。

From JB and WF: This edi­tion of The Craft of Re­search is the second that we have re­vised, and our primary debt is to the book’s three ori­ginal au­thors: Wayne C. Booth, Gregory G. Colomb, and Joseph M. Wil­li­ams. Through their own re­search, writ­ing, and teach­ing, they be­nefited gen­er­a­tions of stu­dents, col­leagues, and read­ers—in­clud­ing us. The op­por­tun­ity to learn from them once again as we re­vised this book for a new gen­er­a­tion of read­ers is one for which we are truly grate­ful.

我们感谢编辑玛丽·劳尔(Mary Laur)的真知灼见、宝贵建议和敏锐的修辞技巧,也感谢她对我们二人的支持、鼓励和信任。我们感谢罗素·大卫·哈珀(Russell David Harper)在引文格式方面的专业指导,感谢莫莉·麦克菲(Mollie McFee)和安德里亚·布拉茨(Andrea Blatz)在文本准备工作中的辛勤付出,感谢艾琳·德威特(Erin DeWitt)专业而细致的校对,以及芝加哥大学出版社其他所有支持本项目的成员。

We thank our ed­itor, Mary Laur, for her in­sight, coun­sel, and keen rhet­or­ical sense and also for her sup­port, en­cour­age­ment, and faith in the two of us. We thank Rus­sell David Harper for his ex­pert guid­ance on cita­tion styles, Mol­lie McFee and An­drea Blatz for their care­ful work in pre­par­ing the text, Erin DeWitt for her ex­pert and sens­it­ive copy­ed­it­ing, and the rest of the team at the Uni­ver­sity of Chicago Press who sup­por­ted this pro­ject.

我们衷心感谢在本书创作的各个阶段都给予我们慷慨支持的各位。Doug Brent、Tom Deans、Doug Downs、Mya Poe 和 Annette Vee 对我们的修订方案提出了宝贵的意见,Tom Deans 和 Mya Poe 还阅读并评论了完整的书稿草稿。我们还要感谢我们的敏感度审阅员 Ebonye Gussine Wilkins 对草稿的细致审阅。如果没有他们的建议,本书的最终版本将会更加完善。

We thank those who so gen­er­ously re­spon­ded to our work at every stage of its com­pos­i­tion. Doug Brent, Tom Deans, Doug Downs, Mya Poe, and An­nette Vee provided valu­able feed­back on our pro­posal for the re­vi­sion, and Tom Deans and Mya Poe read and com­men­ted on a full draft of the ma­nu­script. We thank as well our sens­it­iv­ity reader Ebonye Gussine Wilkins for her de­tailed re­view of that draft. The book is far bet­ter than it would have been for their sug­ges­tions.

我们感谢那些在教学中使用过《研究的艺术》一书并分享了他们的经验、观点和建议的人们。与我们携手共进。我们尤其感谢波士顿大学和罗格斯大学卡姆登分校的同事们,多年来,他们与我们分享了许多宝贵的见解。当然,本书的不足之处也归咎于我们自身。

We thank those who have used The Craft of Re­search in their own teach­ing and have shared their ex­per­i­ences, opin­ions, and sug­ges­tions with us. We es­pe­cially thank our col­leagues at Bo­ston Uni­ver­sity and Rut­gers Uni­ver­sity–Cam­den for ideas shared in con­ver­sa­tions over many years. Of course, the book’s short­com­ings re­main our own.

乔·比祖普感谢他的妻子安玛丽·卡拉坎西以及女儿格蕾丝和夏洛特;比尔·菲茨杰拉德也同样感谢他的妻子埃米莉亚·列瓦诺以及女儿玛格达莱娜。他们的爱与支持(以及对我们深夜写作的耐心)至关重要。

Joe Bizup thanks his wife, An­nmarie Ca­ra­cansi, and daugh­ters, Grace and Char­lotte; and Bill FitzGer­ald like­wise thanks his wife, Emilia Liev­ano, and daugh­ter, Mag­dalena. Their love and sup­port (and pa­tience with our late-night writ­ing ses­sions) were es­sen­tial.

附录

Ap­pendix

书目及其他资源简明指南

A Brief Guide to Bibliographic and Other Resources

本附录精选了一系列用于开展、撰写和展示研究的工具,以及一些数据库、网站和印刷资料。此外,读者还可以咨询当地图书馆员或查阅相关学科的指南,以获取有关研究和写作的专业资源(数据库、词典、百科全书等)。

This ap­pendix provides a cur­ated col­lec­tion of tools for con­duct­ing, writ­ing, and present­ing re­search as well as se­lec­ted data­bases, web­sites, and print ma­ter­i­als. In ad­di­tion, read­ers might con­sult a local lib­rar­ian or a sub­ject-spe­cific guide that can identify spe­cial­ized re­sources (data­bases, dic­tion­ar­ies, en­cyc­lo­pe­dias, etc.) for ad­vice on re­search and writ­ing.

在列表后半部分提供的资源中,我们将资源分为通用资源和特定学科资源,并归入艺术与人文、社会科学以及STEM(科学、技术、工程和数学)三大类。我们还区分了主要侧重于研究(包括研究方法)的资源和侧重于写作的资源。但这种区分并不完全精确;许多资源同时涉及研究和写作。

In the re­sources provided in the second half of the list, we dis­tin­guish between those of a gen­eral nature and those re­lated to spe­cific dis­cip­lines, grouped into broad cat­egor­ies of Arts and Hu­man­it­ies, So­cial Sci­ences, and STEM (Sci­ence, Tech­no­logy, En­gin­eer­ing, and Math­em­at­ics) fields. We also dis­tin­guish between re­sources fo­cused primar­ily on re­search (in­clud­ing re­search meth­ods) and those fo­cused on writ­ing. But this dis­tinc­tion is far from ex­act; many re­sources ad­dress both re­search and writ­ing.

通用工具、数据库和资源

General Tools, Databases, and Resources

注释、引用和演示工具

Annotation, Citation, and Presentation Tools

第四章中,我们将讨论积极利用资源的方法,包括使用各种工具进行笔记和电子化引用。大多数学术图书馆都为教师、学生和其他用户提供此类研究工具。以下是截至本文撰写之时最常用的几种工具:

In chapter 4, we dis­cuss tech­niques for en­ga­ging sources act­ively, in­clud­ing the use of vari­ous tools for tak­ing notes and pre­par­ing cita­tions elec­tron­ic­ally. Most aca­demic lib­rar­ies provide ac­cess to such tools for re­search to fac­ulty, stu­dents, and other pat­rons. Here are a few of the most widely used as of this writ­ing:

  • 注释工具:Evernote、Hypothes.is、Perusall
  • An­nota­tion tools: Ever­note, Hy­po­thes.is, Per­us­all
  • 文献管理工具:EndNote、Mendeley、Zotero
  • Cita­tion-man­age­ment tools: End­Note, Mendeley, Zotero
  • 演示工具:PowerPoint、Prezi
  • Present­a­tion tools: Power­Point, Prezi

在线数据库

Online Databases

这些数据库大多可通过公共图书馆或学术图书馆订阅访问。但也有一些数据库(例如,美国国会图书馆在线目录、CQ Researcher)可供个人研究人员直接访问。我们还收录了几个最常用的在线图像数据库。

Most of these data­bases are ac­cess­ible by sub­scrip­tion through a pub­lic or aca­demic lib­rary. But some (e.g., the Lib­rary of Con­gress On­line Cata­log, CQ Re­searcher) may be ac­cessed dir­ectly by in­di­vidual re­search­ers. We also in­clude sev­eral of the most com­mon on­line data­bases for im­ages.

  1. Academic Search Premier(EBSCO),https://www.ebsco.com/products/research-databases/academic-search-premier
  2. Aca­demic Search Premier (EB­SCO), ht­tps://www.eb­sco.com/products/re­search-data­bases/aca­demic-search-premier
  3. CQ Researcher(Sage 出版社),https://learningresources.sagepub.com/cq-press/researcher
  4. CQ Re­searcher (Sage), ht­tps://learn­in­gre­sources.sage­pub.com/cq-press/re­searcher
  5. ERIC(教育资源信息中心),https://eric.ed.gov/
  6. ERIC (Edu­ca­tion Re­sources In­form­a­tion Cen­ter), ht­tps://eric.ed.gov/
  7. Gale Academic OneFile,https://www.gale.com/intl/databases/gale-onefile
  8. Gale Aca­demic One­File, ht­tps://www.gale.com/intl/data­bases/gale-one­file
  9. HW Wilson,https://www.hwwilsoninprint.com/
  10. H. W. Wilson, ht­tps://www.hwwilson­in­print.com/
  11. JSTOR,https://www.jstor.org
  12. JSTOR, ht­tps://www.jstor.org
  13. LexisNexis,https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/gateway.page
  14. Lex­is­Nexis, ht­tps://www.lex­is­nexis.com/en-us/gate­way.page
  15. 美国国会图书馆在线目录,https://catalog.loc.gov/
  16. Lib­rary of Con­gress On­line Cata­log, ht­tps://cata­log.loc.gov/
  17. PubMed(美国国家医学图书馆),https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
  18. PubMed (Na­tional Lib­rary of Medi­cine), ht­tps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
  19. WorldCat,https://www.oclc.org/en/worldcat.html
  20. World­Cat, ht­tps://www.oclc.org/en/world­cat.html

图像数据库

Image Databases

  1. 美联社新闻编辑室(图片和视频),https://newsroom.ap.org/editorial-photos-videos/home
  2. AP News­room (ed­it­or­ial pho­tos and videos), ht­tps://news­room.ap.org/ed­it­or­ial-pho­tos-videos/home
  3. Artstor,https://www.artstor.org/
  4. Artstor, ht­tps://www.artstor.org/
  5. 美国数字公共图书馆(DPLA),https://dp.la/
  6. Di­gital Pub­lic Lib­rary of Amer­ica (DPLA), ht­tps://dp.la/
  7. Getty Images,https://www.gettyimages.com/
  8. Getty Im­ages, ht­tps://www.getty­im­ages.com/
  9. 谷歌图片,https://images.google.com/
  10. Google Im­ages, ht­tps://im­ages.google.com/

数据的可视化表示

Visual Representation of Data

  1. 埃弗格林,斯蒂芬妮。《有效的数据可视化:为正确的数据选择正确的图表》。第2版。Sage出版社,2019年。
  2. Ever­green, Stephanie. Ef­fect­ive Data Visu­al­iz­a­tion: The Right Chart for the Right Data. 2nd ed. Sage, 2019.
  3. Knaflic, Cole Nusshaumer.用数据讲故事:面向商业专业人士的数据可视化指南。Wiley,2015。
  4. Knaflic, Cole Nusshaumer. Storytelling with Data: A Data Visu­al­iz­a­tion Guide for Busi­ness Pro­fes­sion­als. Wiley, 2015.
  5. Krum, Randy.酷炫信息图:利用数据可视化和设计进行有效沟通。Wiley and Sons出版社,2013年。
  6. Krum, Randy. Cool In­fograph­ics: Ef­fect­ive Com­mu­nic­a­tion with Data Visu­al­iz­a­tion and Design. Wiley and Sons, 2013.
  7. Nicol、Adelheid AM 和 Penny M. Pexman。《展示你的研究成果:创建图表、海报和演示文稿的实用指南》。第 6 版。美国心理学会,2010 年。
  8. Nicol, Ad­el­heid A. M., and Penny M. Pex­man. Dis­play­ing Your Find­ings: A Prac­tical Guide for Cre­at­ing Fig­ures, Posters, and Present­a­tions. 6th ed. Amer­ican Psy­cho­lo­gical As­so­ci­ation, 2010.

进行演讲、设计海报

Delivering Presentations, Designing Posters

  1. Alley, Michael.科学演讲的艺术:成功的关键步骤和需要避免的关键错误。第2版。Springer出版社,2013年。
  2. Al­ley, Mi­chael. The Craft of Sci­entific Present­a­tions: Crit­ical Steps to Suc­ceed and Crit­ical Er­rors to Avoid. 2nd ed. Springer, 2013.
  3. Lacatus, Corina 和 Alex Nogues。《创建你的研究海报》。Sage出版社,2021 年。
  4. La­catus, Cor­ina, and Alex Nogues. Cre­ate Your Re­search Poster. Sage, 2021.
  5. Rowe, Nicholas.学术和科学海报展示:现代综合指南。Springer International,2017。
  6. Rowe, Nich­olas. Aca­demic and Sci­entific Poster Present­a­tion: A Mod­ern Com­pre­hens­ive Guide. Springer In­ter­na­tional, 2017.

研究指南

Guides to Research

一般的

General

  1. Hudley, Ann H. Charity, Cheryl L. Dickter 和 Hannah A. Franz。《本科生科研必备指南:大学内外的成功》。教师学院出版社,2017 年。
  2. Hud­ley, Ann H. Char­ity, Cheryl L. Dick­ter, and Han­nah A. Franz. The In­dis­pens­able Guide to Un­der­gradu­ate Re­search: Suc­cess in and bey­ond Col­lege. Teach­ers Col­lege Press, 2017.
  3. 曼恩,托马斯。《牛津图书馆研究指南》。第4版。牛津大学出版社,2015年。
  4. Mann, Thomas. The Ox­ford Guide to Lib­rary Re­search. 4th ed. Ox­ford Uni­ver­sity Press, 2015.
  5. Mullaney, Thomas S. 和 Christopher Rea。《研究的起点:选择一个对你(和世界)有意义的研究项目》。芝加哥大学出版社,2022 年。
  6. Mul­laney, Thomas S., and Chris­topher Rea. Where Re­search Be­gins: Choos­ing a Re­search Pro­ject That Mat­ters to You (and the World). Uni­ver­sity of Chicago Press, 2022.
  7. 图拉比安,凯特·L. 《研究论文、学位论文和毕业论文写作手册》。第9版。由韦恩·C·布斯、格雷戈里·G·科伦布、约瑟夫·M·威廉姆斯、约瑟夫·比祖普、威廉·T·菲茨杰拉德和芝加哥大学出版社编辑部修订。芝加哥大学出版社,2018年。
  8. Tur­a­bian, Kate L. A Manual for Writers of Re­search Pa­pers, Theses, and Dis­ser­ta­tions. 9th ed. Re­vised by Wayne C. Booth, Gregory G. Colomb, Joseph M. Wil­li­ams, Joseph Bizup, Wil­liam T. FitzGer­ald, and the Uni­ver­sity of Chicago Press Ed­it­or­ial Staff. Uni­ver­sity of Chicago Press, 2018.

研究方法

Research Methods

  1. Cresswell, John W. 和 Cherry N. Poth。《定性探究与研究设计:五种方法的选择》。第 4 版。Sage 出版社,2017 年。
  2. Cress­well, John W., and Cherry N. Poth. Qual­it­at­ive In­quiry and Re­search Design: Choos­ing among Five Ap­proaches. 4th ed. Sage, 2017.
  3. 弗里克,乌韦。《研究方法导论:研究项目入门指南》。Sage出版社,2020年。
  4. Flick, Uwe. In­tro­du­cing Re­search Meth­od­o­logy: A Be­gin­ner’s Guide to Do­ing a Re­search Pro­ject. Sage, 2020.
  5. Gerard, Philip. 《创意研究的艺术:作家实地指南》。芝加哥大学出版社,2017 年。
  6. Ger­ard, Philip. The Art of Cre­at­ive Re­search: A Field Guide for Writers. Uni­ver­sity of Chicago Press, 2017.
  7. Lareau, Annette. 《倾听他人:访谈、参与式观察、数据分析和撰写实物的实用指南》。芝加哥大学出版社,2021年。
  8. Lar­eau, An­nette. Listen­ing to People: A Prac­tical Guide to In­ter­view­ing, Par­ti­cipant Ob­ser­va­tion, Data Ana­lysis, and Writ­ing It All Up. Uni­ver­sity of Chicago Press, 2021.
  9. Merriam, Sharan B. 和 Elizabeth J. Tisdell。《定性研究:设计与实施指南》。第 4 版。John Wiley and Sons 出版社,2017 年。
  10. Mer­riam, Sharan B., and Eliza­beth J. Tis­dell. Qual­it­at­ive Re­search: A Guide to Design and Im­ple­ment­a­tion. 4th ed. John Wiley and Sons, 2017.
  11. Roulston, Kathryn 和 Kathleen deMarrais。《探索档案:定性研究入门指南》。迈尔斯教育出版社,2021 年。
  12. Roul­ston, Kath­ryn, and Kath­leen de­Marrais. Ex­plor­ing the Archives: A Be­gin­ner’s Guide for Qual­it­at­ive Re­search­ers. My­ers Edu­ca­tion Press, 2021.
  13. Yin, Robert K.案例研究及其应用:设计与方法。Sage出版社,2018年。
  14. Yin, Robert K. Case Study Re­search and Ap­plic­a­tions: Design and Meth­ods. Sage, 2018.

艺术与人文

Arts and Humanities

  1. Brookhank, Elizabeth 和 H. Faye Christenberry。《MLA 本科生文学研究指南》。现代语言协会,2019 年。
  2. Brookhank, Eliza­beth, and H. Faye Christen­berry. MLA Guide to Un­der­gradu­ate Re­search in Lit­er­at­ure. Mod­ern Lan­guage As­so­ci­ation, 2019.
  3. Clary-Lemon, Jennifer, Derek N. Mueller 和 Kate Pantelides。《试试这个:作家研究方法》。WAC Clearinghouse,2022 年。
  4. Clary-Lemon, Jen­nifer, Derek N. Mueller, and Kate Pan­telides. Try This: Re­search Meth­ods for Writers. WAC Clear­ing­house, 2022.
  5. Geisler, Cheryl 和 Jason Swarts。《语言流编码:文本、谈话和其他语言数据系统编码技术》。WAC Clearinghouse,2020 年。
  6. Geisler, Cheryl, and Jason Swarts. Cod­ing Streams of Lan­guage: Tech­niques for the Sys­tem­atic Cod­ing of Text, Talk, and Other Verbal Data. The WAC Clear­ing­house, 2020.
  7. Griffin, Gabriele 编.英语研究方法.第2版.爱丁堡大学出版社,2013年。
  8. Griffin, Gab­ri­ele, ed. Re­search Meth­ods for Eng­lish Stud­ies. 2nd ed. Ed­in­burgh Uni­ver­sity Press, 2013.
  9. 海福德,米歇尔。《戏剧本科生研究:学生指南》。泰勒和弗朗西斯出版社,2021年。
  10. Hay­ford, Michelle. Un­der­gradu­ate Re­search in Theatre: A Guide for Stu­dents. Taylor and Fran­cis, 2021.
  11. 金凯德,乔伊斯。《写作研究:研究方法导论》。犹他州立大学出版社,2016 年。
  12. Kinkead, Joyce. Re­search­ing Writ­ing: An In­tro­duc­tion to Re­search Meth­ods. Utah State Uni­ver­sity Press, 2016.
  13. 奥弗比、林内特·杨、珍妮·奥林·沙纳汉和格雷戈里·杨。《舞蹈本科生研究:学生指南》。劳特利奇出版社,2019年。
  14. Overby, Lyn­nette Young, Jenny Olin Sha­na­han, and Gregory Young. Un­der­gradu­ate Re­search in Dance: A Guide for Stu­dents. Rout­ledge, 2019.
  15. Ramsey, Alexis E.、Wendy B. Sharer、Barbara L'Eplattenier 和 Lisa Mastrangelo。《档案工作:修辞与写作的实用研究方法》。南伊利诺伊大学出版社,2010 年。
  16. Ram­sey, Alexis E., Wendy B. Sharer, Bar­bara L’Eplat­ten­ier, and Lisa Mas­tran­gelo. Work­ing in the Archives: Prac­tical Re­search Meth­ods for Rhet­oric and Com­pos­i­tion. South­ern Illinois Uni­ver­sity Press, 2010.
  17. Lucia Ricciardelli、Jenny Olin Shanahan 和 Gregory Young。《电影本科生研究:学生指南》。Routledge出版社,2020 年。
  18. Ric­ciar­delli Lu­cia, Jenny Olin Sha­na­han, and Gregory Young. Un­der­gradu­ate Re­search in Film: A Guide for Stu­dents. Rout­ledge, 2020.
  19. 托德,莫莉。《历史学本科生研究:学生指南》。劳特利奇出版社,2022年。
  20. Todd, Molly. Un­der­gradu­ate Re­search in His­tory: A Guide for Stu­dents. Rout­ledge, 2022.
  21. Young, Gregory 和 Jenny Olin Shanahan。《音乐本科生研究:学生指南》。Routledge出版社,2017 年。
  22. Young, Gregory, and Jenny Olin Sha­na­han. Un­der­gradu­ate Re­search in Mu­sic: A Guide for Stu­dents. Rout­ledge, 2017.

社会科学(包括商业和教育)

Social Sciences (Including Business and Education)

  1. 霍华德,克里斯托弗。《像政治学家一样思考:研究方法的实用指南》。芝加哥大学出版社,2017 年。
  2. Howard, Chris­topher. Think­ing Like a Polit­ical Sci­ent­ist: A Prac­tical Guide to Re­search Meth­ods. Uni­ver­sity of Chicago Press, 2017.
  3. Palmer, Ruth J. 和 Deborah L. Thompson。《教育学本科生研究指南:教师教育项目学生指南》。Taylor and Francis 出版社,2022 年。
  4. Palmer, Ruth J., and De­borah L. Thompson. Con­duct­ing Un­der­gradu­ate Re­search in Edu­ca­tion: A Guide for Stu­dents in Teacher Edu­ca­tion Pro­grams. Taylor and Fran­cis, 2022.
  5. 萨尔达纳,约翰尼。《定性研究者编码手册》。第4版。Sage出版社,2021年。
  6. Saldana, Johnny. The Cod­ing Manual for Qual­it­at­ive Re­search­ers. 4th ed. Sage, 2021.
  7. Sekaran, Uma 和 Roger Bougie。《商业研究方法:技能培养方法》。第 7 版。Wiley,2016 年。
  8. Sekaran, Uma, and Ro­ger Bou­gie. Re­search Meth­ods for Busi­ness: A Skill-Build­ing Ap­proach. 7th ed. Wiley, 2016.
  9. Seligman, Ross A. 和 Lindsay A. Mitchell. 《心理学研究方法学生生存指南》。Taylor and Francis 出版社,2021 年。
  10. Se­lig­man, Ross A., and Lind­say A. Mitchell. The Stu­dent Sur­vival Guide for Re­search Meth­ods in Psy­cho­logy. Taylor and Fran­cis, 2021.

STEM学科

STEM Dis­cip­lines

  1. 哈兰德,达西·J. STEM学生研究手册。美国国家科学教师协会,2011年。
  2. Har­land, Darci J. STEM Stu­dent Re­search Hand­book. Na­tional Sci­ence Teach­ers As­so­ci­ation, 2011.
  3. Harris, Pamela E.、Erik Insko 和 Aaron Wootton 编著。《基于项目的本科生数学研究指南:启动和维持易于参与的本科生研究》。Springer International,2020 年。
  4. Har­ris, Pamela E., Erik In­sko, and Aaron Woot­ton, eds. A Pro­ject-Based Guide to Un­der­gradu­ate Re­search in Math­em­at­ics: Start­ing and Sus­tain­ing Ac­cess­ible Un­der­gradu­ate Re­search. Springer In­ter­na­tional, 2020.
  5. Northey, Margot, Dianne Draper 和 David B. Knight。《理解地理和环境科学:学生研究和写作指南》。第 6 版。牛津大学出版社,2015 年。
  6. Northey, Mar­got, Di­anne Draper, and David B. Knight. Mak­ing Sense in Geo­graphy and En­vir­on­mental Sci­ences: A Stu­dent’s Guide to Re­search and Writ­ing. 6th ed. Ox­ford Uni­ver­sity Press, 2015.

写作指南

Guides to Writing

一般的

General

  1. 《芝加哥格式手册》第18版。芝加哥大学出版社,2024年。
  2. The Chicago Manual of Style. 18th ed. Uni­ver­sity of Chicago Press, 2024.
  3. Germano, William.论修改:唯一重要的写作。芝加哥大学出版社,2021年。
  4. Germano, Wil­liam. On Re­vi­sion: The Only Writ­ing That Counts. Uni­ver­sity of Chicago Press, 2021.
  5. Lipson, Charles. 《正确引用:引用格式快速指南——MLA、APA、芝加哥、科学、专业及其他》。第3版。芝加哥大学出版社,2018年。
  6. Lipson, Charles. Cite Right: A Quick Guide to Cita­tion Styles—MLA, APA, Chicago, the Sci­ences, Pro­fes­sions, and More. 3rd ed. Uni­ver­sity of Chicago Press, 2018.
  7. Lipson, Charles.如何撰写学士论文:从最初的想法到最终完成的实用指南。第2版。芝加哥大学出版社,2018年。
  8. Lipson, Charles. How to Write a BA Thesis: A Prac­tical Guide from Your First Ideas to Your Fin­ished Pa­per. 2nd ed. Uni­ver­sity of Chicago Press, 2018.
  9. Williams, Joseph M. 和 Joseph Bizup.风格:清晰与优雅的课程。第 12 版。Pearson,2016 年。
  10. Wil­li­ams, Joseph M., and Joseph Bizup. Style: Les­sons in Clar­ity and Grace. 12th ed. Pear­son, 2016.

艺术与人文

Arts and Humanities

  1. 巴内特,西尔万。《艺术写作简明指南》。第11版。培生教育出版集团,2015年。
  2. Barnet, Sylvan. A Short Guide to Writ­ing about Art. 11th ed. Pear­son, 2015.
  3. MLA手册。第9版。现代语言协会,2021年。
  4. MLA Hand­book. 9th ed. Mod­ern Lan­guage As­so­ci­ation, 2021.
  5. Rogers, Lynne, Karen M. Bottge 和 Sara Haefeli。《音乐写作:简明指南》。牛津大学出版社,2021 年。
  6. Ro­gers, Lynne, Karen M. Bot­tge, and Sara Hae­feli. Writ­ing in Mu­sic: A Brief Guide. Ox­ford Uni­ver­sity Press, 2021.
  7. Storey, William Kelleher. 《历史写作:学生指​​南》。第6版。牛津大学出版社,2020年。
  8. Storey, Wil­liam Kelle­her. Writ­ing His­tory: A Guide for Stu­dents. 6th ed. Ox­ford Uni­ver­sity Press, 2020.

社会科学

Social Sciences

  1. Allen, Jennifer M. 和 Steven Hougland。《SAGE刑事司法研究方法写作指南》。Sage出版社,2020年。
  2. Al­len, Jen­nifer M., and Steven Hougland. The SAGE Guide to Writ­ing in Crim­inal Justice Re­search Meth­ods. Sage, 2020.
  3. Becker, Howard S. 《社会科学家写作指南:如何开始和完成你的论文、书籍或文章》。第3版。芝加哥大学出版社,2020年。
  4. Becker, Howard S. Writ­ing for So­cial Sci­ent­ists: How to Start and Fin­ish Your Thesis, Book, or Art­icle. 3rd ed. Uni­ver­sity of Chicago Press, 2020.
  5. Brown, Shan-Estelle. 《人类学写作:简明指南》。牛津大学出版社,2016年。
  6. Brown, Shan-Es­telle. Writ­ing in An­thro­po­logy: A Brief Guide. Ox­ford Uni­ver­sity Press, 2016.
  7. Emerson, Robert M.、Rachel I. Fretz 和 Linda L. Shaw。《民族志田野笔记写作》。第 2 版。芝加哥大学出版社,2018 年。
  8. Emer­son, Robert M., Rachel I. Fretz, and Linda L. Shaw. Writ­ing Eth­no­graphic Field­notes. 2nd ed. Uni­ver­sity of Chicago Press, 2018.
  9. Ghodsee, Kristen.从笔记到叙事:撰写人人都能读懂的民族志。芝加哥大学出版社,2016 年。
  10. Ghod­see, Kristen. From Notes to Nar­rat­ive: Writ­ing Eth­no­graph­ies That Every­one Can Read. Uni­ver­sity of Chicago Press, 2016.
  11. LaVaque-Manty, Mika 和 Danielle LaVaque-Manty。《政治学写作:简明指南》。牛津大学出版社,2016 年。
  12. LaVaque-Manty, Mika, and Dani­elle LaVaque-Manty. Writ­ing in Polit­ical Sci­ence: A Brief Guide. Ox­ford Uni­ver­sity Press, 2016.
  13. McCloskey, Deirdre Nansen. 《经济写作:清晰且有说服力的散文的三十五条规则》。第3版。芝加哥大学出版社,2019年。
  14. Mc­Clo­s­key, Deirdre Nansen. Eco­nom­ical Writ­ing: Thirty-Five Rules for Clear and Per­suas­ive Prose. 3rd ed. Uni­ver­sity of Chicago Press, 2019.
  15. Northey, Margot, Lorne Tepperman 和 Patrizia Albanese。《社会科学中的理解:学生研究与写作指南》。第 8 版。牛津大学出版社,2023 年。
  16. Northey, Mar­got, Lorne Tep­per­man, and Pat­rizia Al­banese. Mak­ing Sense in the So­cial Sci­ences: A Stu­dent’s Guide to Re­search and Writ­ing. 8th ed. Ox­ford Uni­ver­sity Press, 2023.
  17. 美国心理学会出版手册。第7版。美国心理学会,2019年。
  18. Pub­lic­a­tion Manual of the Amer­ican Psy­cho­lo­gical As­so­ci­ation. 7th ed. Amer­ican Psy­cho­lo­gical As­so­ci­ation, 2019.
  19. Smith-Lovin, Lynn 和 Cary Moskovitz。《社会学写作:简明指南》。牛津大学出版社,2016 年。
  20. Smith-Lovin, Lynn, and Cary Moskovitz. Writ­ing in So­ci­ology: A Brief Guide. Ox­ford Uni­ver­sity Press, 2016.
  21. 斯特恩伯格,罗伯特·J.和卡琳·斯特恩伯格。《心理学家伴侣:学生、教师和研究人员的专业成功指南》。第6版。剑桥大学出版社,2016年。
  22. Stern­berg, Robert J., and Karin Stern­berg. The Psy­cho­lo­gist’s Com­pan­ion: A Guide to Pro­fes­sional Suc­cess for Stu­dents, Teach­ers, and Re­search­ers. 6th ed. Cam­bridge Uni­ver­sity Press, 2016.
  23. 范·马南,约翰。《田野故事:民族志写作》。第2版。芝加哥大学出版社,2011年。
  24. Van Maanen, John. Tales of the Field: On Writ­ing Eth­no­graphy. 2nd ed. Uni­ver­sity of Chicago Press, 2011.

STEM学科

STEM Disciplines

  1. Alley, Michael.科学写作的艺术。第4版。Springer出版社,2018年。
  2. Al­ley, Mi­chael. The Craft of Sci­entific Writ­ing. 4th ed. Springer, 2018.
  3. CSE手册:作者、编辑和出版商的科学风格和格式。第9版。芝加哥大学出版社,2024年。
  4. The CSE Manual: Sci­entific Style and Format for Au­thors, Ed­it­ors, and Pub­lish­ers. 9th ed. Uni­ver­sity of Chicago Press, 2024.
  5. Harmon, Joseph E. 和 Alan G. Gross。《科学传播的艺术》。芝加哥大学出版社,2010 年。
  6. Har­mon, Joseph E., and Alan G. Gross. The Craft of Sci­entific Com­mu­nic­a­tion. Uni­ver­sity of Chicago Press, 2010.
  7. 艾瑞什,罗伯特。《工程写作:简明指南》。牛津大学出版社,2016 年。
  8. Ir­ish, Robert. Writ­ing in En­gin­eer­ing: A Brief Guide. Ox­ford Uni­ver­sity Press, 2016.
  9. Long, Thomas Lawrence 和 Cheryl Tatiana Beck。《护理写作:简明指南》。牛津大学出版社,2016 年。
  10. Long, Thomas Lawrence, and Cheryl Ta­tiana Beck. Writ­ing in Nurs­ing: A Brief Guide. Ox­ford Uni­ver­sity Press, 2016.
  11. Miller, Jane E. 《芝加哥多元分析写作指南》。第2版。芝加哥大学出版社,2013年。
  12. Miller, Jane E. The Chicago Guide to Writ­ing about Mul­tivari­ate Ana­lysis. 2nd ed. Uni­ver­sity of Chicago Press, 2013.
  13. 米勒,简·E. 《芝加哥数字写作指南》。第2版。芝加哥大学出版社,2015年。
  14. Miller, Jane E. The Chicago Guide to Writ­ing about Num­bers. 2nd ed. Uni­ver­sity of Chicago Press, 2015.
  15. Montgomery, Scott L. 《芝加哥科学传播指南》。第2版。芝加哥大学出版社,2017年。
  16. Mont­gomery, Scott L. The Chicago Guide to Com­mu­nic­at­ing Sci­ence. 2nd ed. Uni­ver­sity of Chicago Press, 2017.
  17. Roldan, Leslie Ann 和 Mary-Lou Mardue。《生物学写作:简明指南》。牛津大学出版社,2016 年。
  18. Roldan, Leslie Ann, and Mary-Lou Mar­due. Writ­ing in Bio­logy: A Brief Guide. Ox­ford Uni­ver­sity Press, 2016.
  19. Tyowua, Andrew Terhemen. 《化学科学写作实用指南:科学论文、研究资助和书籍提案》。CRC出版社,2023年。
  20. Ty­owua, An­drew Ter­he­men. A Prac­tical Guide to Sci­entific Writ­ing in Chem­istry: Sci­entific Pa­pers, Re­search Grants and Book Pro­pos­als. CRC Press, 2023.

指数

In­dex

摘要,书面形式,258–61

ab­strac­tions, in writ­ing, 258–61

抽象名词,256,259-61,263

ab­stract nouns, 256, 259–61, 263

摘要,198–200;文章,59;书目来源/著作,59、65 数据库,59 ;定义和术语用法,198 导言,198、245 总结,199–200

ab­stracts, 198–200; in art­icles, 59; in bib­li­o­graphic sources/works, 59, 65; in data­bases, 59; defined and term us­age, 198; and in­tro­duc­tions, 198, 245; and sum­mar­ies, 199–200

致谢与回应。参见 “论点。

ac­know­ledg­ments and re­sponses. See un­der ar­gu­ments and ar­gu­ment­a­tion

主动语态动词和语态,264–66另见 被动语态动词和语态。

act­ive verbs and voice, 264–66. See also pass­ive verbs and voice

建议和启发式方法,第十四章

ad­vice, and heur­ist­ics, xiv

人工智能(AI)。参见 生成式人工智能

AI (ar­ti­fi­cial in­tel­li­gence). See gen­er­at­ive AI

轶事,8、132、157、248

an­ec­dotes, 8, 132, 157, 248

注释:参考文献,59、93 论断,92 ;旁注,92-93 来源和参考文献,91-93、301-302

an­nota­tions: in bib­li­o­graph­ies, 59, 93; and claims, 92; mar­ginal, 92–93; sources and re­sources for, 91–93, 301–2

答案、定义和术语用法,第104、173另见 问答。

an­swers, defined and term us­age, 104, 173. See also ques­tions and an­swers

焦虑:信息过载的焦虑,291;作者和新项目/主题的焦虑,48;初学者的焦虑,48 认知超载的焦虑,需要安慰,111;经验不足的焦虑,48、111、189管理焦虑,94、188-190;认为焦虑是自然且不可避免的,48 演讲者的焦虑,需要准备笔记,275 ;研究人员的焦虑,需要减少焦虑,2、11、48、111 回顾和学习焦虑,48;作家的焦虑,需要管理焦虑,188-190 确定性

anxi­ety: of abund­ant in­form­a­tion, 291; of au­thors, and new pro­jects/top­ics, 48; of be­gin­ners, 48; and cog­nit­ive over­load, re­as­sur­ance for, 111; and in­ex­per­i­ence, 48, 111, 189; man­aging, 94, 188–90; as nat­ural and in­ev­it­able, 48; of presenters, notes for, 275; of re­search­ers, re­du­cing, 2, 11, 48, 111; re­view­ing and learn­ing from, 48; of writers, man­aging, 188–90. See also un­cer­tainty

论证与论证:致谢与回应,第十八至十九页第12页第82页101102,第105101页,第112页,第154167,第182至183页,第194至195页,第201页,第287页,第295页;替代方案,第154页,第158页,第162至165页;以及答案98,第101页;集结,第97至98页,第102至105页,第124页;清晰性,第191页;作为共同活动,第十四至十六页第292页;沟通,第十五至十六页第202页第268页;概念框架,第十五页;核心,102–5,124,136,137,154,156,159 作为辩论,145;交付,xix169 起草,171,175–87;体裁,293 ;缓和语气,122;作为知识建构xviii 要点,114 制作,xv xviii– xix 95,101–12 态,234 组织124,175,191–97计划107–10,124,171–73,175–87实用建议,xv质量194–95;关于……的问题异议,101-102、106-107、154、156-157;阅读(来源和资源),51、81-83 现实世界,145 研究问题,78;修改,191-197、252;重写,99 学术性,56;分享,xiv-xv 技能,xv;解决方案,167;……的合理性,156-157 来源和资源,5174,158 ;以及子论证,116,161,167;实质,194;检验,147-49;以及真理,xvii-xviii弱点160 写作,xiv 171-73另见权利要求担保

ar­gu­ments and ar­gu­ment­a­tion: ac­know­ledg­ments and re­sponses, xviii–xix, 12, 82, 101–2, 105–10, 112, 154–67, 182–83, 194–95, 201, 287, 295; al­tern­at­ives to, 154, 158, 162–65; and an­swers, 98, 101; as­sem­bling, 97–98, 102–5, 124; clar­ity of, 191; as com­munal activ­ity, xiv–xvi, 292; com­mu­nic­at­ing, xv–xvi, 202, 268; con­cep­tual frame­work for, xv; core of, 102–5, 124, 136, 137, 154, 156, 159; as de­bates, 145; de­liv­er­ing, xix, 169; draft­ing, 171, 175–87; of genres, 293; hedging, 122; as in­tel­lec­tual con­struc­tions, xviii; main points of, 114; mak­ing, xv, xviii–xix, 95, 101–12; mul­timodal, 234; or­gan­iz­ing, 124, 175, 191–97; plan­ning, 107–10, 124, 171–73, 175–87; prac­tical ad­vice for, xv; qual­ity of, 194–95; ques­tions and ob­jec­tions for, 101–2, 106–7, 154, 156–57; read­ing for (sources and re­sources), 51, 81–83; real-world, 145; and re­search prob­lems, 78; re­vis­ing, 191–97, 252; re­writ­ing, 99; schol­arly, 56; shar­ing, xiv–xv; skills, xv; and solu­tions, 167; sound­ness of, 156–57; sources and re­sources for, 51, 74, 158; and sub-ar­gu­ments, 116, 161, 167; sub­stance of, 194; test­ing, 147–49; and truths, xvii–xviii; weak­nesses in, 160; writ­ing, xiv, 171–73. See also claims; war­rants

人工智能(AI)。参见 生成式人工智能

ar­ti­fi­cial in­tel­li­gence (AI). See gen­er­at­ive AI

艺术与人文:以及纯粹研究,44;研究指南,304;研究问题,241;引用和引述的资料,88、201、208 最新资料,67 写作指南,305

arts and hu­man­it­ies: and pure re­search, 44; re­search guides, 304; re­search ques­tions, 241; sources cited and quoted, 88, 201, 208; sources as cur­rent, 67; writ­ing guides, 305

受众,1-13;学术,11;用于高级研究,202;以及论点,xiv158;联系,4-5;以及背景,238;与……的合作关系,154;定义和术语用法,xvii-xviii;作为娱乐,8-9 了解,13,99 ; ……的兴趣,11 聆听者,8,9 ……的反应和回应,13,158 ;以及研究人员,1-2,4-5;以及修辞意义,295 ; ……的角色,7-11 ;与……的共同理解,238 以及来源/资源,158,202 信任,32、74、112、120、129、155、201 理解,13、99、238 以及理解,帮助他们,9-11 以及作家……共享理解238。另读者

audi­ence, 1–13; aca­demic, 11; for ad­vanced re­search, 202; and ar­gu­ments, xiv, 158; con­nect­ing with, 4–5; and con­text, 238; co­oper­at­ive re­la­tion­ship with, 154; defined and term us­age, xvii–xviii; as en­ter­tained, 8–9; get­ting to know, 13, 99; in­terests of, 11; listen­ing by, 8, 9; re­ac­tions and re­sponses of, 13, 158; and re­search­ers, 1–2, 4–5; and rhet­or­ical sig­ni­fic­ance, 295; role of, 7–11; shared un­der­stand­ing with, 238; and sources/re­sources, 158, 202; trust of, 32, 74, 112, 120, 129, 155, 201; un­der­stand­ing, 13, 99, 238; and un­der­stand­ing, help­ing them to, 9–11; and writers, shared un­der­stand­ing with, 238. See also read­ers

审计人员,演示文稿,272–75、278、279

aud­it­ors, present­a­tions to, 272–75, 278, 279

真实性以及伦理291、296;研究,2、5、6、9、40、42、51、66-68、101、291、295-97;来源和资源9、51 见可信度

au­then­ti­city: and eth­ics, 291, 296; of re­search, 2, 5, 6, 9, 40, 42, 51, 66–68, 101, 291, 295–97; of sources and re­sources, 9, 51. See also cred­ib­il­ity

权威/权威性:断言,77;证据,132-133;逻辑,55 引文和引述,89,202;来源和资源,67,77,132;基于质疑的授权150

au­thor­ity/au­thor­it­ies: as­ser­tions of, 77; of evid­ence, 132–33; and lo­gic, 55; quotes and quo­ta­tions from, 89, 202; of sources and re­sources, 67, 77, 132; war­rants based on, chal­len­ging, 150

作者。参见作家

au­thors. See writers

参考文献:注释,59,93 引文,87,128–29,215–16 收集,295 脚注,68,215–16,293 生成人工智能,73 正确形式293 来源和资源,128–29,209,214–15 来源和资源,62,65,68

bib­li­o­graph­ies: an­not­ated, 59, 93; and cita­tions, 87, 128–29, 215–16; col­lect­ing, 295; and foot­notes, 68, 215–16, 293; and gen­er­at­ive AI, 73; proper forms for, 293; sources and re­sources in, 128–29, 209, 214–15; in sources and re­sources, 62, 65, 68

Booth, Wayne C., v , xiii–xiv , xvi–xvii , 78 , 299

Booth, Wayne C., v, xiii–xiv, xvi–xvii, 78, 299

商业和教育。参见 社会科学。

busi­ness and edu­ca­tion. See so­cial sci­ences

图表坐标轴,135、223 柱状图,128、218、219、223、225-229、232 气泡图,233;定义术语用法,217;设计,220-223 作为有效图形,218 证据传达,128、134-135、206、217-212、222-229、231-233 以及图表,219、222-223;水平坐标轴,135;标签 223 ;饼图 226-228、232 ;演示文稿中的应用,274 在来源和资源中应用55 具体指南223-228

charts: axes in, 135, 223; bar, 128, 218, 219, 223, 225–29, 232; bubble, 233; defined and term us­age, 217; design­ing, 220–23; as ef­fect­ive graph­ics, 218; evid­ence com­mu­nic­ated in, 128, 134–35, 206, 217–20, 222–29, 231–33; and graphs, 219, 222–23; ho­ri­zontal axes in, 135; la­bels in, 223; pie, 226–28, 232; in present­a­tions, 274; in sources and re­sources, 55; spe­cific guidelines for, 223–28

《芝加哥格式手册209、216、305

Chicago Manual of Style, The, 209, 216, 305

引文与引用:参考文献,87、128-129、215-216 ;学术风范,206 脚注,215-216;索引,63 论文中的标注,214-216 注释86、301;括号,214-215、216防范剽窃,206、209-213 社会重要性,206-207来源/资源,68-69、83、201、207、301-320;文风 207-209、214、216 。来源资源

cita­tions and cit­ing: and bib­li­o­graph­ies, 87, 128–29, 215–16; ethos of, 206; and foot­notes, 215–16; in­dexes of, 63; in­dic­at­ing in pa­pers, 214–16; and notes, 86, 301; par­en­thet­ical, 214–15, 216; and pla­gi­ar­ism, guard­ing against, 206, 209–13; so­cial im­port­ance of, 206–7; and sources/re­sources, 68–69, 83, 201, 207, 301–20; styles of, 207–9, 214, 216. See also sources and re­sources

主张:和注释,92 ;作为研究问题答案,114;和论证,104、106、107、114-23、136、137 和断言,104;清晰度,155;概念性 115 作为可争议的,123;可信度,120-22;定义和术语用法,104、173 评估 116-20 和事实 1、115、123、152-53 构思不当,163种类,114-16 ;提出合理论据以支持,11-12;实用性,115-16 获得可信度,120-22 和引文,194 阅读材料(来源和资源),第 84 页;研究问题,第 48 页第 114 页;具体且重要,第 114 页第 116-120 页;论证依据,第 106-107 页第 137 页另见论点和论证。

claims: and an­nota­tions, 92; as an­swers to re­search ques­tions, 114; and ar­gu­ments, 104, 106, 107, 114–23, 136, 137; and as­ser­tions, 104; clar­ity of, 155; con­cep­tual, 115; as con­test­able, 123; cred­ib­il­ity of, 120–22; defined and term us­age, 104, 173; eval­u­at­ing, 116–20; and facts, 1, 115, 123, 152–53; ill-con­ceived, 163; kinds of, 114–16; mak­ing sound cases in sup­port of, 11–12; prac­tical, 115–16; qual­i­fy­ing for cred­ib­il­ity, 120–22; and quo­ta­tions, 194; read­ing for (sources and re­sources), 84; and re­search ques­tions, 48, 114; as spe­cific and sig­ni­fic­ant, 114, 116–20; and war­rants, 106–7, 137. See also ar­gu­ments and ar­gu­ment­a­tion

清晰度:论证的清晰度,191 主张的清晰度,155;编辑的清晰度,188 ;证据的清晰度, 133-135 ;行文流畅性的清晰度, 270;图表的清晰度,228 ;修改的清晰度,192,252-270;简洁性的清晰度,第十七页写作的清晰度,111,188,254-262

clar­ity: of ar­gu­ments, 191; of claims, 155; and edit­ing, 188; of evid­ence, 133–35; and flow, 270; of graph­ics, 228; and re­vis­ing, 192, 252–70; and sim­pli­city, xvii; of writ­ing, 111, 188, 254–62

认知超负荷和焦虑,需要安慰,111

cog­nit­ive over­load and anxi­ety, re­as­sur­ance for, 111

Colomb, Gregory G., v , xiii–xiv , xvi–xvii , 78 , 299

Colomb, Gregory G., v, xiii–xiv, xvi–xvii, 78, 299

沟通:作为一种共同活动,第十四至十六页第292页;概念框架和实用建议,第十五页;作为对话,第4页;作为研究,第十三页第十四至十六页第72页,第285页,第292至293页技能,第十五页;以及思考,第176页;以及写作,第十六页第176页。

com­mu­nic­a­tion: as com­munal activ­ity, xiv–xvi, 292; con­cep­tual frame­work and prac­tical ad­vice for, xv; as con­ver­sa­tions, 4; of re­search, xiii, xiv–xvi, 72, 285, 292–93; skills, xv; and think­ing, 176; and writ­ing, xvi, 176

复杂性,以及修订253,266-68

com­plex­ity, and re­vis­ing, 253, 266–68

结论:对话,250;有效,172;引言,235-250;演示文稿,12,275-276,278-280 研究论文,183-184;资料来源和资源,65 写作,248-250另见引言;摘要总结

con­clu­sions: con­ver­sa­tions in, 250; ef­fect­ive, 172; and in­tro­duc­tions, 235–50; in present­a­tions, 12, 275–76, 278–80; in re­search pa­pers, 183–84; in sources and re­sources, 65; writ­ing, 248–50. See also in­tro­duc­tions; sum­mar­ies and sum­mar­iz­ing

语境:以及受众,238;以及经验不足,239 引言,238-240;笔记,89-91;研究论文,177-178;研究问题,179、199;修辞,292-293、295-296 以及摘要,199 主题,26-27

con­text: and audi­ence, 238; and in­ex­per­i­ence, 239; for in­tro­duc­tions, 238–40; for notes, 89–91; for re­search pa­pers, 177–78; for re­search prob­lems, 179, 199; rhet­or­ical, 292–93, 295–96; and sum­mar­ies, 199; for top­ics, 26–27

对话论证,如第十九56、98、101-102、104-105、154、191、201、248主张,如104-105、154页;沟通如第4页;结论250辩论,如第十六十七研究第十六十七十九、3-4、10、22、32、46、66、70、82、160、194-195、197、285页;写作4

con­ver­sa­tions: ar­gu­ments as, xix, 56, 98, 101–2, 104–5, 154, 191, 201, 248; claims as, 104–5, 154; com­mu­nic­a­tion as, 4; in con­clu­sions, 250; and de­bates, xvi–xvii; re­search as, xvi–xvii, xix, 3–4, 10, 22, 32, 46, 66, 70, 82, 160, 194–95, 197, 285; writ­ing as, 4

CQ 研究员(Sage),302

CQ Re­searcher (Sage), 302

可信度:关于主张,120-22;关于证据,132-33;关于诚实,212-13;关于网络资源,63 关于来源和资源,63、93另见真实性

cred­ib­il­ity: of claims, 120–22; of evid­ence, 132–33; and hon­esty, 212–13; of on­line re­sources, 63; of sources and re­sources, 63, 93. See also au­then­ti­city

克里克,弗朗西斯118–19,121,241,243,287–88

Crick, Fran­cis, 118–19, 121, 241, 243, 287–88

好奇心,教师培养,294-97

curi­os­ity, teach­ers fos­ter­ing, 294–97

数据:定义和术语用法,18;经验数据,126 证据,83-84,194;观点,108;信息,18;注释,194;客观数据,113;阅读材料来源资源),83-84;来源和资源,83-84;统计分析/模型,113,126;可视化表示,217 来源和资源的可视化表示,302-303另见定量数据

data: defined and term us­age, 18; em­pir­ical, 126; for evid­ence, 83–84, 194; and ideas, 108; and in­form­a­tion, 18; and notes, 194; ob­ject­ive, 113; read­ing for (sources and re­sources), 83–84; sources and re­sources for, 83–84; and stat­ist­ical ana­lyses/mod­els, 113, 126; visual rep­res­ent­a­tions of, 217; visual rep­res­ent­a­tions of, sources and re­sources, 302–3. See also quant­it­at­ive data

数据库资源,第xv54、57–61、63–64、75–76、87、92–93、133、208、301–3。另互联网在线资源​

data­base re­sources, xv, 54, 57–61, 63–64, 75–76, 87, 92–93, 133, 208, 301–3. See also in­ter­net; on­line re­sources

截止日期,186、188、295-96

dead­lines, 186, 188, 295–96

辩论,第十六至十七页145

de­bates, xvi–xvii, 145

分歧:论证与论证,82、164、166-167、173 反例,166 创造性,80-81 ;信誉,163 观点55 可预测性55、82、166-167反思问题28 梳理,173;来源与资源,28、77、80-82、86、91、158、207;主题22

dis­agree­ments: to ar­gu­ments and ar­gu­ment­a­tion, 82, 164, 166–67, 173; and counter­examples, 166; cre­at­ive, 80–81; and ethos, 163; and points of view, 55; pre­dict­able, 55, 82, 166–67; ques­tions that re­flect, 28; sort­ing out, 173; with sources and re­sources, 28, 77, 80–82, 86, 91, 158, 207; and top­ics, 22

话语和知识生产,第十六至十七页

dis­course, and know­ledge pro­duc­tion, xvi–xvii

草稿与起草:文风,171;证据,182;规划,154、171-173、175-187 演示,272 快速,186;审查,99 修改与组织,191-197;重访,197

drafts and draft­ing: ethos in, 171; evid­ence in, 182; and plan­ning, 154, 171–73, 175–87; of present­a­tions, 272; quick, 186; re­view of, 99; re­vis­ing and or­gan­iz­ing, 191–97; re­vis­it­ing, 197

电子书62,75-76

ebooks, 62, 75–76

EBSCO 54,302

EB­SCO, 54, 302

编辑。参见 修订和修改。

edit­ing. See re­vis­ing and re­vi­sions

教育和商业。参见 社会科学。

edu­ca­tion and busi­ness. See so­cial sci­ences

工程学。这门 STEM学科

en­gin­eer­ing. See STEM dis­cip­lines

ERIC(教育资源信息中心),302

ERIC (Edu­ca­tion Re­sources In­form­a­tion Cen­ter), 302

伦理:以及对受众的义务,第十九卷第286-288页;以及真实性,第291页第296页;定义和术语用法,第285页;倾销,第290页;以及证据,视觉表征,第228-231页;生成式人工智能的使用,第72页第286页第296页;以及利益,第287页;以及对受众和研究人员的义务,第十九卷第12页第286-288页;以及对自身的义务,第12页第285-286页;以及被利用的权力差异,第290页;专业组织和学术期刊,第290页;研究,第十九卷第285-291页第296页;以及社会责任,第289-291页;以及透明度,第290页;以及授权,第290-291页;以及写作,第296页。

eth­ics: and audi­ence, ob­lig­a­tions to, xix, 286–88; and au­then­ti­city, 291, 296; defined and term us­age, 285; dump­ing, 290; and evid­ence, visual rep­res­ent­a­tions of, 228–31; of gen­er­at­ive AI use, 72, 286, 296; and in­terests, 287; and ob­lig­a­tions, to audi­ence and re­search­ers, xix, 12, 286–88; and ob­lig­a­tions, to your­self, 12, 285–86; and power dif­fer­en­tials, ex­ploited, 290; of pro­fes­sional or­gan­iz­a­tions and aca­demic journ­als, 290; of re­search, xix, 285–91, 296; and so­cial re­spons­ib­il­ity, 289–91; and trans­par­ency, 290; and war­rants, 290–91; and writ­ing, 296

伦理:以及论证,110-112、120、129、147、163、171、201 ;以及傲慢的确定性,避免,120 引文和引用,206 定义术语用法,110-11、285 以及分歧,163 在草稿中,171 证据,129 来源和资源,66、201、206;授权147

ethos: and ar­gu­ments, 110–12, 120, 129, 147, 163, 171, 201; and ar­rog­ant cer­tainty, avoid­ing, 120; of cita­tions and cit­ing, 206; defined and term us­age, 110–11, 285; and dis­agree­ments, 163; in drafts, 171; of evid­ence, 129; of sources and re­sources, 66, 201, 206; of war­rants, 147

证据准确性,130 轶事,132;用于答案,18 用于论点和主张,17,82-83,97,104,106,107,124-36,137,149,152-53,184,194 评估收集到的信息,136 权威性,132-33 断章取义,132;清晰易懂,133-35;可信度,132-33 数据 83-84,194 定义和术语用法18,104确定所需类型 126-27 草稿 182 表述伦理228-31 精神气质,129 评估,129-35 基础隐喻,126诚实 132 ;种类 126-27 视觉上的误解,231;原创性,82 精确,130-31;质量,124,157;定量,217;问题18 引文126,194,206 理由/推理12,82,97-98,103-7,109-10,124-38,142-43,151-58,171,194,294;相关性和可靠性,84,206 报告,127-29,134;回应,182-83 ;来源/资源,207 充分性和代表性,131-32;支持,104 信任当前和过去,128 口头 217-18 视觉交流和表征,134-35,217-34,302-3 以及保证92,152-54

evid­ence: ac­cur­acy of, 130; an­ec­dotal, 132; for an­swers, 18; for ar­gu­ments and claims, 17, 82–83, 97, 104, 106, 107, 124–36, 137, 149, 152–53, 184, 194; as­sess­ing as gathered, 136; au­thor­it­at­ive, 132–33; cherry-pick­ing, 132; clear and un­der­stand­able, 133–35; cred­ib­il­ity of, 132–33; data for, 83–84, 194; defined and term us­age, 18, 104; de­term­in­ing kinds needed, 126–27; in drafts, 182; eth­ics of rep­res­ent­a­tions, 228–31; ethos of, 129; eval­u­at­ing, 129–35; found­a­tional meta­phors for, 126; and hon­esty, 132; kinds of, 126–27; mis­rep­res­ent­a­tions of, visual, 231; ori­gin­al­ity in, 82; pre­cise, 130–31; qual­ity of, 124, 157; quant­it­at­ive, 217; for ques­tions, 18; and quo­ta­tions, 126, 194, 206; and reas­ons/reas­on­ing, 12, 82, 97–98, 103–7, 109–10, 124–38, 142–43, 151–58, 171, 194, 294; rel­ev­ance and re­li­ab­il­ity of, 84, 206; re­ports of, 127–29, 134; re­sponses to, 182–83; and sources/re­sources, 207; suf­fi­cient and rep­res­ent­at­ive, 131–32; and sup­port, 104; trust­ing cur­rent and past, 128; verbal, 217–18; visual com­mu­nic­a­tion and rep­res­ent­a­tions of, 134–35, 217–34, 302–3; and war­rants, 92, 152–54

数据:定义和术语用法,217 证据交流,217、220-221

fig­ures: defined and term us­age, 217; evid­ence com­mu­nic­ated in, 217, 220–21

脚注:以及参考文献,68、215-16、293 以及引文,215-16 正确的格式293

foot­notes: and bib­li­o­graph­ies, 68, 215–16, 293; and cita­tions, 215–16; proper forms for, 293

富兰克林,罗莎琳德119,287-88

Frank­lin, Ros­alind, 119, 287–88

Gale Academic OneFile,302

Gale Aca­demic One­File, 302

生成式人工智能:及参考文献,73 及交流,72;伦理使用,72、286、296;及探索,72 健康的怀疑精神,63、73;及诚实,72-73、209-10;利用,189;强大而易错,73 用于建议,3、33;及透明度,73 使用,72-73 验证,3

gen­er­at­ive AI: and bib­li­o­graph­ies, 73; and com­mu­nic­at­ing, 72; eth­ical use of, 72, 286, 296; and ex­plor­ing, 72; and healthy skep­ti­cism, 63, 73; and hon­esty, 72–73, 209–10; lever­aging, 189; as power­ful and fal­lible, 73; for sug­ges­tions, 3, 33; and trans­par­ency, 73; us­ing, 72–73; veri­fic­a­tion of, 3

谷歌:以及在线书籍,64;以及健康的怀疑精神,63;以及二手资料,54

Google: and books on­line, 64; and healthy skep­ti­cism, 63; and sec­ond­ary sources, 54

图形:清晰度,228;常见形式和用途,232-233;定义和术语用法,217 ;有效选择,218-220;证据传达,217、218-220、222-223、232-233 框架,220-223 演示文稿讲义,280 标签,220-221、223 图例,220 修辞217、219、232-233;简洁,222-223 具体指南,223-228 三维绘图,223;标题220

graph­ics: clar­ity of, 228; com­mon forms and uses of, 232–33; defined and term us­age, 217; ef­fect­ive, choos­ing, 218–20; evid­ence com­mu­nic­ated in, 217, 218–20, 222–23, 232–33; fram­ing, 220–23; in handouts for present­a­tions, 280; la­bels in, 220–21, 223; le­gends in, 220; rhet­or­ical, 217, 219, 232–33; simple, 222–23; spe­cific guidelines for, 223–28; and three-di­men­sion plot­ting, 223; titles in, 220

图表:坐标轴,第223页;图表,第219、222-223;连续线,第217页;定义和术语用法,第217页;设计,第220-223页;作为有效的图形,第218证据传达,第217、219、222-223、228、233;虚假相关性,第230;标签,第223页;线条,第218、223、228、233;具体指南,223-228

graphs: axes in, 223; and charts, 219, 222–23; con­tinu­ous lines in, 217; defined and term us­age, 217; design­ing, 220–23; as ef­fect­ive graph­ics, 218; evid­ence com­mu­nic­ated in, 217, 219, 222–23, 228, 233; false cor­rel­a­tions in, 230; la­bels in, 223; line, 218, 223, 228, 233; spe­cific guidelines for, 223–28

讲义,用于演示,第272、273、280

handouts, for present­a­tions, 272, 273, 280

标题和副标题:以及要点,275;章节和小节,187、195-96 幻灯片274

head­ings and sub­head­ings: and points, 275; for sec­tions and sub­sec­tions, 187, 195–96; in slides, 274

启发式方法和建议,第十四章

heur­ist­ics, and ad­vice, xiv

直方图,232

his­to­grams, 232

诚实性:以及可信度,212-213;以及证据,132;以及生成式人工智能的使用,72-73,209-210 ;以及来源/资源,212-213;以及论证中的弱点160

hon­esty: and cred­ib­il­ity, 212–13; and evid­ence, 132; and gen­er­at­ive AI use, 72–73, 209–10; and sources/re­sources, 212–13; and weak­nesses in ar­gu­ments, 160

人文学科。参见 艺术与人文学科。

hu­man­it­ies. See arts and hu­man­it­ies

HW Wilson 在线数据库,302

H. W. Wilson on­line data­base, 302

假设,45、53、160、199、266-67

hy­po­theses, 45, 53, 160, 199, 266–67

插图和图像。参见 图表图形;图表海报表格

il­lus­tra­tions and im­ages. See charts; fig­ures; graph­ics; graphs; posters; tables

图像数据库,302

im­age data­bases, 302

经验不足:以及焦虑,48、111、189;以及背景,239;以及熟悉作为错误,113 ;以及现场演示节奏,273;作为机会,48;以及纯粹的研究,43 以及研究问题,38-39

in­ex­per­i­ence: and anxi­ety, 48, 111, 189; and con­text, 239; and fa­mili­ar­ity as mis­take, 113; and live present­a­tions, pace of, 273; as op­por­tun­ity, 48; and pure re­search, 43; and re­search prob­lems, 38–39

兴趣点:受众,11;伦理,287 主题,21,22-25

in­terests: of audi­ence, 11; and eth­ics, 287; and top­ics, 21, 22–25

互联网:以及健康的怀疑精神,第63页;以及在线资源定位,第63-64页;以及主题查找,第33页另见 数据库资源;在线资源;搜索引擎;社交媒体。

in­ter­net: and healthy skep­ti­cism, 63; and on­line re­sources, loc­at­ing, 63–64; and top­ics, find­ing, 33. See also data­base re­sources; on­line re­sources; search en­gines; so­cial me­dia

引言:和摘要,198、245;轶事,248 避免陈词滥调,247-248;常见结构,235-237;和结论,235-250;背景,238-240;有效,172;开头词句,247-248 ;节奏、场景,246-247;在演示文稿中,12、276、278-280;引用,248 和研究问题陈述,240-244;和回应陈述,244-246 草图 177-178 在来源和资源中,65;主题,236 结论

in­tro­duc­tions: and ab­stracts, 198, 245; an­ec­dotes in, 248; clichés, avoid­ing in, 247–48; com­mon struc­ture of, 235–37; and con­clu­sions, 235–50; con­text for, 238–40; ef­fect­ive, 172; first words and sen­tences in, 247–48; pace, set­ting, 246–47; in present­a­tions, 12, 276, 278–80; quo­ta­tions in, 248; and re­search prob­lem state­ments, 240–44; and re­sponse state­ments, 244–46; sketch­ing, 177–78; in sources and re­sources, 65; top­ics in, 236. See also con­clu­sions

JAMA,医学研究期刊,290

JAMA, med­ical re­search journal, 290

期刊文章28、62、65、67、75-76、266

journal art­icles, 28, 62, 65, 67, 75–76, 266

JSTOR 59,302

JSTOR, 59, 302

关键词和关键术语:摘要中出现200 次;目标受众中出现180次论点中出现92次;结论中出现195 次;草稿中出现180、182、187;引言中出现195、248次;注释中出现85、93;段落中出现195次;引文出现248;研究论文中出现180、187、195次;修改出现192-193、195、196、267参考文献中出现60-62、64-66、92、205-206标题中出现200、251

keywords and key terms: in ab­stracts, 200; and audi­ence, 180; and claims, 92; in con­clu­sions, 195; in drafts, 180, 182, 187; in in­tro­duc­tions, 195, 248; in notes, 85, 93; in para­graphs, 195; and quo­ta­tions, 248; in re­search pa­pers, 180, 187, 195; and re­vis­ing, 192–93, 195, 196, 267; in sources and re­sources, 60–62, 64–66, 92, 205–6; in titles, 200, 251

知识生产,基于话语的模型,第十六至十七页

know­ledge pro­duc­tion, dis­course-based model of, xvi–xvii

学习:以及教学,288,296-97 以及写作,175

learn­ing: and teach­ing, 288, 296–97; and writ­ing, 175

LexisNexis,302

Lex­is­Nexis, 302

图书馆有关资料资源53、57-63、76、87-88、190、301

lib­rar­ies, for sources and re­sources, 53, 57–63, 76, 87–88, 190, 301

美国国会图书馆在线目录60–61,302

Lib­rary of Con­gress On­line Cata­log, 60–61, 302

逻辑:以及权威,55;以及推理,155

lo­gic: and au­thor­ity, 55; and reas­on­ing, 155

数学。这门 STEM学科

math­em­at­ics. See STEM dis­cip­lines

麦克林托克,芭芭拉,26岁

Mc­Clin­tock, Bar­bara, 26

应避免的错误:依赖熟悉的事物和已知的知识,113

mis­take to avoid: fall­ing back on fa­mili­ar­ity and what your know, 113

MLA手册,第209页第305页

MLA Hand­book, 209, 305

自然科学。这门 STEM学科

nat­ural sci­ences. See STEM dis­cip­lines

自然(期刊),290

Nature (journal), 290

Ngom,Fallou,119

Ngom, Fal­lou, 119

动词和名词的名词化,256–58

nom­in­al­iz­a­tions, of verbs and nouns, 256–58

笔记和笔记记录:以及引文,86、301;关于主张,90-91;以及完整文档,76 背景,89-91;以及数据,194 电子版,86-88;索引卡,85-86 关于演示文稿,274-275、277 以及引文,76、86、194 ;以及参考文献,86;以及来源/资源74、76、84-91、136、301系统性84-91;以及纸上思考,85-86

notes and note tak­ing: and cita­tions, 86, 301; for claims, 90–91; and com­plete doc­u­ment­a­tion, 76; con­text for, 89–91; and data, 194; elec­tronic, 86–88; in­dex cards for, 85–86; for present­a­tions, 274–75, 277; and quo­ta­tions, 76, 86, 194; and ref­er­ences, 86; and sources/re­sources, 74, 76, 84–91, 136, 301; sys­tem­atic, 84–91; and think­ing on pa­per, 85–86

抽象名词。参见 抽象名词。

nouns, ab­stract. See ab­stract nouns

客观性,第十七章第132页

ob­jectiv­ity, xvii, 132

在线资源:引用,76;版权,64-65;可信度,63;时效性,68 查找和定位,33、53、63-65 以及保持理性怀疑,63 数据库资源;互联网;搜索引擎

on­line re­sources: cit­ing, 76; and copy­right, 64–65; cred­ib­il­ity of, 63; cur­rency of, 68; find­ing and loc­at­ing, 33, 53, 63–65; and healthy skep­ti­cism, 63. See also data­base re­sources; in­ter­net; search en­gines

组织模式,184–85

or­gan­iz­a­tional pat­terns, 184–85

原创性,69,82,211,278,296

ori­gin­al­ity, 69, 82, 211, 278, 296

大纲,19–20、108、171、180–81、185、187、193、277、295 见故事板

out­lines, 19–20, 108, 171, 180–81, 185, 187, 193, 277, 295. See also story­boards

节奏:引言部分,246–47 正文部分,273,281

pace: in in­tro­duc­tions, 246–47; in present­a­tions, 273, 281

论文和报告。请参阅 研究论文和报告。

pa­pers and re­ports. See re­search pa­pers and re­ports

段落:缩进,272–73 修改192、196–97、268参考文献资料,55、65、210

para­graphs: in­dent­ing, 272–73; re­vis­ing, 192, 196–97, 268; in sources and re­sources, 55, 65, 210

释义与改述:定义与术语用法,201 公平创造203-204以及自然科学,88,201 以及社会科学,88,201;来源与资源88-90,199,201-206,210-212

para­phrases and para­phras­ing: defined and term us­age, 201; fair, cre­at­ing, 203–4; and nat­ural sci­ences, 88, 201; and so­cial sci­ences, 88, 201; of sources and re­sources, 88–90, 199, 201–6, 210–12

被动语态动词和语态,163、256、264-267另见主动语态动词和语态

pass­ive verbs and voice, 163, 256, 264–67. See also act­ive verbs and voice

同行评审,54,64,67,132-33

peer re­view, 54, 64, 67, 132–33

剽窃:以及引用,206、209-213;以及伦理,286、288 防止无意剽窃,206、209-213;以及笔记84 并非无受害者的犯罪行为,213 以及拼凑写作,184-185 合理化,188 以及来源/资源,82、84、210-213

pla­gi­ar­ism: and cita­tions, 206, 209–13; and eth­ics, 286, 288; guard­ing against in­ad­vert­ent, 206, 209–13; and note tak­ing, 84; as not vic­tim­less of­fense, 213; and patch writ­ing, 184–85; ra­tion­al­iz­ing, 188; and sources/re­sources, 82, 84, 210–13

规划:以及受众,13;以及草拟,154、171-173、175-187 以及组织,175 ;应对可预见的偏差,18 项目,17-20;以及思考,171-173;以及写作171-173

plan­ning: and audi­ence, 13; and draft­ing, 154, 171–73, 175–87; and or­gan­iz­ing, 175; for pre­dict­able de­tours, 18; of pro­jects, 17–20; and think­ing, 171–73; and writ­ing, 171–73

要点、定义和术语用法,173

points, defined and term us­age, 173

观点,35、37、55、81、102、105、111-112、118、128、154

points of view, 35, 37, 55, 81, 102, 105, 111–12, 118, 128, 154

海报2,303

posters, 2, 303

演示文稿,第十九272-282页;易于理解,273-274页;面向听众,272页;面向听众,272-275页278页279页;图表,274页;结论,第十二275-276页278-280页;演讲,272页;草拟,272页;最终稿,277-280页;正式稿,第十二;讲义,272、273、280;介绍,第十二276、278-280;面向现场听众,272-282;要点,开篇陈述,245;多模态,234页;备注,274-275页277页;节奏,273,281 作为表演,281-82;计划,272;初步,275-77;幻灯片,272-74,280 来源和资源,301-3;制作步骤12

present­a­tions, xix, 2, 272–82; as ac­cess­ible, 273–74; and audi­ence, ad­dress­ing in, 272; to aud­it­ors, 272–75, 278, 279; charts in, 274; con­clu­sions in, 12, 275–76, 278–80; de­liv­er­ing, 272; draft­ing, 272; fi­nal, 277–80; formal, 12; handouts for, 272, 273, 280; in­tro­duc­tions in, 12, 276, 278–80; for live audi­ence, 272–82; main points of, stat­ing up front, 245; mul­timodal, 234; notes for, 274–75, 277; pace in, 273, 281; as per­form­ances, 281–82; plan­ning, 272; pre­lim­in­ary, 275–77; slides for, 272–74, 280; sources and re­sources for, 301–3; steps in pro­du­cing, 12

问题。参见 研究问题

prob­lems. See re­search prob­lems

拖延症,136

pro­cras­tin­a­tion, 136

古腾堡计划和在线书籍,64

Pro­ject Guten­berg, and books on­line, 64

PubMed (美国国家医学图书馆)59,302

PubMed (Na­tional Lib­rary of Medi­cine), 59, 302

定量数据,18、128、133-34、172、217、227-28

quant­it­at­ive data, 18, 128, 133–34, 172, 217, 227–28

问答,第十八十五页;实际,第二十页;论证,第十八、二十二、十六、十七、十五四、十五六、十五七页;主张,第十八十一四页;分歧,第二十八页;评估,第十八、二十九页;证据,第十八页;阐述,第四十八;间接,第三十、三十一页;解释,第十七、十八页;激励,第三十一、三十二页;可预测的答案,第二十八十页;研究问题,第二十一、二十二、三十五四十七、十五五、十五六、十七八、二十四一页;修辞,第十九九页;解决方案,第二十三十五页;来源和资源,第二十七、二十八页;推测,第二十七页;主题21–34另见答案;主张研究问题

ques­tions and an­swers, xviii, 7, 15; ac­tual, 2; for ar­gu­ments, 101–2, 106–7, 154, 156–57; and claims, 48, 114; and dis­agree­ments, 28; eval­u­at­ing, 28–29; evid­ence for, 18; for­mu­lat­ing, 48; in­dir­ect, 30–31; in­ter­pret­ive, 17–18; mo­tiv­at­ing, 31–32; pre­dict­able, an­swers for, 280; and re­search prob­lems, 21–22, 35–47, 155–56, 178, 241; rhet­or­ical, 199; and solu­tions, 235; from sources and re­sources, 27–28; spec­u­lat­ive, 27; top­ics for, 21–34. See also an­swers; claims; re­search prob­lems

引文、引语、引用:来自权威,89、202;引用来源,210-211 ;以及主张,194 定义和术语用法,201 直接引用204-205;以及证据,126、194、206 在引言中,248 混合引用,205-206 以及注释76、86、194 关于来源和资源88-90、199、201-202、204-206、210-211使用204-205

quotes, quo­ta­tions, quot­ing: from au­thor­it­ies, 89, 202; cit­ing sources of, 210–11; and claims, 194; defined and term us­age, 201; dir­ect, 204–5; and evid­ence, 126, 194, 206; in in­tro­duc­tions, 248; mix­ing, 205–6; and notes, 76, 86, 194; of sources and re­sources, 88–90, 199, 201–2, 204–6, 210–11; us­ing, 204–5

读者,第十四十八192页另见 “听证” 。

read­ers, xiv, xviii, 192. See also audi­ence

理由和推理:以及分析81-83 论证和主张55,81-84,98,102-7,109,124-39,141-43,145-48,152-53,155,171,182-84,194;受到质疑 10,137 定义术语用法 104 以及证据12,82,97-98,103-7,109-10,124-38,142-43,151-58,171,194,294以及逻辑,155 ;以及要点184 研究方面,第十六卷第8页;授权方面,第92卷第105-107页第137-139页第145-146页第152-154页第171页;写作方面,第172-173页。

reas­ons and reas­on­ing: and ana­lysis, 81–83; for ar­gu­ments and claims, 55, 81–84, 98, 102–7, 109, 124–39, 141–43, 145–48, 152–53, 155, 171, 182–84, 194; chal­lenged, 10, 137; defined and term us­age, 104; and evid­ence, 12, 82, 97–98, 103–7, 109–10, 124–38, 142–43, 151–58, 171, 194, 294; and lo­gic, 155; and points, 184; for re­search, xvi, 8; and war­rants, 92, 105–7, 137–39, 145–46, 152–54, 171; for writ­ing, 172–73

报告和论文。请参阅 研究论文和报告。

re­ports and pa­pers. See re­search pa­pers and re­ports

研究:学术研究,7、9、19、22、36、38、47、114、129、207-8 高级研究,202 以及问题解答,7 ;应用研究,7、42-45、160、242作为挑战,12 作为集体活动,xiv - xvi292-93;概念框架,xv;作为隐性契约,1 ;定义和术语用法,3-4 实践,xv;框架构建和发展,11;以及群体支持,19-20 ;指南(来源资源),303-5 ;直升机式监控290 以及新颖有趣的信息,6 孤立,19-20;方法,128、132、290 ;方法、来源和资源,301、303-304 模型,55;在线原则,xv 规划,17-18;实用建议,xv;实际后果,43-45 专业,129 ;纯粹7、42-45、242;问题及答案,7;理由,xvi 8;修辞,199、295-296;作用,5-7 ;满意度和成功,12 共享,2、8、19-20、292;技能,xv 作为社会活动,285 来源和资源,303-305 成功和满意度12 用途xvi

re­search: aca­demic, 7, 9, 19, 22, 36, 38, 47, 114, 129, 207–8; ad­vanced, 202; and an­swers to ques­tions, 7; ap­plied, 7, 42–45, 160, 242; as chal­len­ging, 12; as com­munal activ­ity, xiv–xvi, 292–93; con­cep­tual frame­work for, xv; as con­tracts, im­pli­cit, 1; defined and term us­age, 3–4; do­ing, xv; fram­ing and de­vel­op­ing, 11; and group sup­port, 19–20; guides (sources and re­sources), 303–5; heli­copter, 290; and in­form­a­tion, new and in­ter­est­ing, 6; isol­a­tion of, 19–20; meth­ods, 128, 132, 290; meth­ods, sources and re­sources, 301, 303–4; mod­els for, 55; on­line, prin­ciples for, xv; plan­ning, 17–18; prac­tical ad­vice for do­ing, xv; prac­tical con­sequences of, 43–45; pro­fes­sional, 129; pure, 7, 42–45, 242; and ques­tions, an­swers to, 7; reas­ons for, xvi, 8; rhet­or­ical, 199, 295–96; role of, 5–7; sat­is­fac­tion and suc­cess of, 12; as shared, 2, 8, 19–20, 292; skills, xv; as so­cial activ­ity, 285; sources and re­sources, 303–5; suc­cess and sat­is­fac­tion of, 12; uses of, xvi

研究论证。参见 论证和论证。

re­search ar­gu­ments. See ar­gu­ments and ar­gu­ment­a­tion

研究人员,角色,5-7

re­search­ers, role of, 5–7

研究论文和报告,第十七十二页;正文,第180-182页;背景,第177-178页草拟,第177-187页;正式,第175-177页;格式,第175页;多模态,第234页;组织模式,第184-185页;规划,第177-184页;要点,第46页;研究问题,第178-179页;修改和组织,第191-197页另见写作。

re­search pa­pers and re­ports, xvii, 2, 12; body of, 180–82; con­text for, 177–78; draft­ing, 177–87; formal, 175–77; format, 175; mul­timodal, 234; or­gan­iz­a­tional pat­terns, 184–85; plan­ning, 177–84; and points, 46; and re­search prob­lems, 178–79; re­vis­ing and or­gan­iz­ing, 191–97. See also writ­ing

研究成果报告。查看 报告。

re­search present­a­tions. See present­a­tions

研究问题:和论点,78;阐述,47;和受众,243 常见结构,36-37;概念,7,38-42 和结论,47;背景,179,199;发现,45-47;和经验不足,38-39;和引言,240-46;原创性,82 实践,9,37-45 和问题,21-22,35-47,155-56,178,241 ;阅读(来源和资源),78-81 现实世界场景,6-7,9 识别,47 研究论文/报告178-79 解答与解题,第十四卷第6-7页第9页第47页第104页第244-246页;参考资料与资源,第46页;主题,第21页;理解,第36-45页另见问答。

re­search prob­lems: and ar­gu­ments, 78; ar­tic­u­la­tion of, 47; and audi­ence, 243; com­mon struc­ture of, 36–37; con­cep­tual, 7, 38–42; and con­clu­sions, 47; con­text for, 179, 199; find­ing, 45–47; and in­ex­per­i­ence, 38–39; and in­tro­duc­tions, 240–46; ori­gin­al­ity in, 82; prac­tical, 9, 37–45; and ques­tions, 21–22, 35–47, 155–56, 178, 241; read­ing for (sources and re­sources), 78–81; real-world scen­arios for, 6–7, 9; re­cog­ni­tion of, 47; and re­search pa­pers/re­ports, 178–79; solu­tions and solv­ing, xiv, 6–7, 9, 47, 104, 244–46; from sources and re­sources, 46; and top­ics, 21; un­der­stand­ing, 36–45. See also ques­tions and an­swers

研究问题。查看 问题和答案。

re­search ques­tions. See ques­tions and an­swers

资源。参见 来源和资源

re­sources. See sources and re­sources

修改与修订:论证,191–97,252;为了清晰、直接、流畅,192,252–70 为了简化,253,266–68 ;为了编辑,268–69 为了强调,271 为了先用旧后用,262–64;为了组织,191–97;最快捷的策略,270–71;以读者为中心,xiv;风格,252–71

re­vis­ing and re­vi­sions: of ar­gu­ments, 191–97, 252; for clar­ity, dir­ect­ness, flow, 192, 252–70; and com­plex­ity, 253, 266–68; and edit­ing, 268–69; for em­phasis, 271; and old be­fore new, 262–64; and or­gan­iz­ing, 191–97; quick­est strategy for, 270–71; with read­ers in mind, xiv; style, 252–71

散点图,233

scat­ter­plots, 233

科学、技术、工程和数学(STEM)。参见 STEM 学科。

sci­ence, tech­no­logy, en­gin­eer­ing, and math­em­at­ics (STEM). See STEM dis­cip­lines

搜索引擎23、33、58、63-64、67、200歌​

search en­gines, 23, 33, 58, 63–64, 67, 200. See also Google

章节和小节:标题和副标题,第187、195-196;规划,第182-183页;以及授权令,第194页

sec­tions and sub­sec­tions: head­ings and sub­head­ings for, 187, 195–96; plan­ning, 182–83; and war­rants, 194

幻灯片,用于演示,第 272-74 页第 280 页

slides, for present­a­tions, 272–74, 280

社交媒体,28,33-34,147-48,166-67

so­cial me­dia, 28, 33–34, 147–48, 166–67

社会责任与伦理,289-91页

so­cial re­spons­ib­il­ity, and eth­ics, 289–91

社会科学:以及释义,88、201 以及纯粹研究,44 研究指南,304;研究问题,241;以及解决方案,246 ;来源和资源,时效性,67、208 来源和资源,原始资料,54 引用和引证来源,88、201、208 写作指南 305-306

so­cial sci­ences: and para­phras­ing, 88, 201; and pure re­search, 44; re­search guides, 304; re­search ques­tions, 241; and solu­tions, 246; sources and re­sources, cur­rency of, 67, 208; sources and re­sources, primary, 54; sources cited and quoted, 88, 201, 208; writ­ing guides, 305–6

解决方案和答案,定义和术语用法,104,173

solu­tions and an­swers, defined and term us­age, 104, 173

来源和资源,第十八 49、301-6页真实性,第9、51权威性,第67、77、132;作者,第64;偏见,第62页;书目信息记录,第75-76页;书目路径,第62页时效性,第67-68、208;区分,第56-57页;电子的,第62页;参与,第74-93页;积极参与,第76-78、136;精神气质,第66、201、206;评估,第51、53-71页查找和定位,第51、53-71;一般,第301-3页诚实,第212-213页;人文学科,201 整合,201-213 以及人,69-71 预测的及超越,69 主要 18,53-54,56-57,76 ;以及邻近性,70;相关性可靠性51,65-69,92 研究指南,303-305 ;次要,18,54-59,64,70-71,74,76,82-84,125,128,158,175,201 ;引用社会重要性,206-207 第三55-56,56-57 类型53-57合作11 写作指南,第305-306页另见参考文献;引文与引用;数据库资源;图书馆;在线资源。

sources and re­sources, xviii, 49, 301–6; au­then­tic, 9, 51; au­thor­ity of, 67, 77, 132; au­thors of, 64; bias in, 62; and bib­li­o­graphic in­form­a­tion, re­cord­ing, 75–76; and bib­li­o­graphic trails, 62; cur­rency of, 67–68, 208; dif­fer­en­ti­at­ing, 56–57; elec­tronic, 62; en­ga­ging, 74–93; en­ga­ging act­ively, 76–78, 136; ethos of, 66, 201, 206; eval­u­at­ing, 51, 53–71; find­ing and loc­at­ing, 51, 53–71; gen­eral, 301–3; and hon­esty, 212–13; hu­man­it­ies, 201; in­cor­por­at­ing, 201–13; and people, 69–71; pre­dict­able and bey­ond, 69; primary, 18, 53–54, 56–57, 76; and prox­im­ity, 70; rel­ev­ance and re­li­ab­il­ity of, 51, 65–69, 92; re­search guides, 303–5; sec­ond­ary, 18, 54–59, 64, 70–71, 74, 76, 82–84, 125, 128, 158, 175, 201; so­cial im­port­ance of cit­ing, 206–7; ter­tiary, 55–56, 56–57; types of, 53–57; work­ing with, 11; writ­ing guides, 305–6. See also bib­li­o­graph­ies; cita­tions and cit­ing; data­base re­sources; lib­rar­ies; on­line re­sources

“那又怎样?” ,第十四卷,第29-32页,37-38页,第41-42页第179页第183页第240-245页第249页第276页第279-280页

“So what?,” xiv, 29–32, 37–38, 41–42, 179, 183, 240–45, 249, 276, 279–80

电子表格,77,84

spread­sheets, 77, 84

STEM学科:释义,88,201 纯研究,44;研究指南,305 研究问题119,241;解决方案,246 引用来源,88,201,208 资源和资料的时效性,208写作指南,306

STEM dis­cip­lines: and para­phras­ing, 88, 201; and pure re­search, 44; re­search guides, 305; re­search prob­lems and ques­tions, 119, 241; and solu­tions, 246; sources cited and quoted, 88, 201, 208; sources and re­sources, cur­rency of, 208; writ­ing guides, 306

故事板,108、124、130、171、177、180-183、185-188、193、276大纲

story­boards, 108, 124, 130, 171, 177, 180–83, 185–88, 193, 276. See also out­lines

摘要和概括,201-202;摘要,199-200;引用来源,210-11;背景,199;定义和术语用法,199、201 公平、创造,202 要点201;混合,205-6 规划171 来源和资源,88-90、199、201-202、205-6、210 结论

sum­mar­ies and sum­mar­iz­ing, 201–2; and ab­stracts, 199–200; cit­ing sources of, 210–11; and con­text, 199; defined and term us­age, 199, 201; fair, cre­at­ing, 202; and main points, 201; mix­ing, 205–6; and plan­ning, 171; of sources and re­sources, 88–90, 199, 201–2, 205–6, 210. See also con­clu­sions

表格:定义和术语用法,217;设计,220-223;作为有效的图形,218 证据传达,206、217-218、221-224 演示文稿讲义,280;标签,223;具体指南223-228

tables: defined and term us­age, 217; design­ing, 220–23; as ef­fect­ive graph­ics, 218; evid­ence com­mu­nic­ated in, 206, 217–18, 221–24; in handouts for present­a­tions, 280; la­bels in, 223; spe­cific guidelines for, 223–28

教师:建议,第十五十九十二292-297页;作业情境,294-296页;好奇心,创造条件,294-296页;学习,288、296-297;现实问题情境,6-7、9;规则,强加风险,293-294页。

teach­ers: ad­vice for, xv, xix, 12, 292–97; and as­sign­ment scen­arios, 294–96; and curi­os­ity, cre­at­ing ground for, 294–96; and learn­ing, 288, 296–97; and real-world scen­arios for prob­lems, 6–7, 9; and rules, risk of im­pos­ing, 293–94

技术。另见 生成式人工智能STEM学科

tech­no­lo­gies. See also gen­er­at­ive AI; STEM dis­cip­lines

论文,第十四卷第104页第173页第295页

thesis, xiv, 104, 173, 295

思考:以及论证,48,171-173;以及受众,173 以及沟通,176;以及知识,120 如同读者,192;在纸上,86 以及计划,171-173;以及阅读,92;研究者,xvii以及写作,88,171-173,175-176

think­ing: and ar­guing, 48, 171–73; and audi­ence, 173; and com­mu­nic­a­tion, 176; and know­ledge, 120; like read­ers, 192; on pa­per, 86; and plan­ning, 171–73; and read­ing, 92; of re­search­ers, xvii; and writ­ing, 88, 171–73, 175–76

标题:图形标题,220 关键词,200、251 幻灯片标题,274;副标题,75、251

titles: in graph­ics, 220; key terms and keywords in, 200, 251; in slides, 274; sub­titles, 75, 251

主题:按类别划分,27;在语境中,26-27;定义和术语用法,21;以及分歧,22 发现,33-34,57;聚焦于,23-25;历史,26;以及本能,26 以及兴趣,21,22-25 在引言中,236;命名,30;以及研究问题,21 关于研究问题,21-34;来自来源和资源,23,27 作为探究的起点,21

top­ics: as cat­egor­ized, 27; in con­text, 26–27; defined and term us­age, 21; and dis­agree­ments, 22; find­ing, 33–34, 57; fo­cus­ing on, 23–25; his­tory of, 26; and in­stincts, 26; and in­terests, 21, 22–25; in in­tro­duc­tions, 236; nam­ing, 30; and re­search prob­lems, 21; for re­search ques­tions, 21–34; from sources and re­sources, 23, 27; as start­ing points for in­quir­ies, 21

透明度:以及伦理,290;以及生成式人工智能,73

trans­par­ency: and eth­ics, 290; and gen­er­at­ive AI, 73

观众信任度,32,74,112,120,129,155,201

trust, of audi­ence, 32, 74, 112, 120, 129, 155, 201

真理,第十七至十八章

truths, xvii–xviii

不确定性:应对不确定性时刻,94;作为自然且不可避免的,48另见 焦虑

un­cer­tainty: man­aging mo­ments of, 94; as nat­ural and in­ev­it­able, 48. See also anxi­ety

动词和语态。参见 主动语态动词和语态;被动语态动词和语态。

verbs and voice. See act­ive verbs and voice; pass­ive verbs and voice

论据:和论证,105-7,137-53;和信条,151;和权威,挑战,150;和生物学,150;挑战他人,149-51;和主张,106-7,137;待满足的条件,142-46;文化150-51定义术语用法,137伦理 290-91 精神,147;和证据,92,152-54 明确的,141 ;和法律,150;和数学,150 方法论的,151 ;合理的,142-43 理由/推理,92、105-107、137-139、145-146、152-154、171章节/章节,194 ;陈述137、146-147、183 检验,142-149 ;未陈述137 论证

war­rants: and ar­gu­ments, 105–7, 137–53; and art­icles of faith, 151; and au­thor­ity, chal­len­ging, 150; and bio­logy, 150; chal­len­ging oth­ers’, 149–51; and claims, 106–7, 137; con­di­tions to be met, 142–46; cul­tural, 150–51; defined and term us­age, 137; and eth­ics, 290–91; ethos of, 147; and evid­ence, 92, 152–54; ex­pli­cit, 141; and law, 150; and math­em­at­ics, 150; meth­od­o­lo­gical, 151; reas­on­able, 142–43; and reas­ons/reas­on­ing, 92, 105–7, 137–39, 145–46, 152–54, 171; and sec­tions/sub­sec­tions, 194; stat­ing, 137, 146–47, 183; test­ing, 142–49; un­stated, 137. See also ar­gu­ments

沃森,詹姆斯118–19,121,241,243,287–88

Wat­son, James, 118–19, 121, 241, 243, 287–88

“如果……怎样?” ,27、30、41、179

“What If?,” 27, 30, 41, 179

Wilkins, Maurice, 119 , 287–88

Wilkins, Maurice, 119, 287–88

威廉姆斯,约瑟夫·M . ,vxiiixivxvi xvii76,77,78,299

Wil­li­ams, Joseph M., v, xiii–xiv, xvi–xvii, 76, 77, 78, 299

Wilson (HW) 在线数据库,302

Wilson (H. W.) on­line data­base, 302

世界猫,302

World­Cat, 302

写作:抽象,258–61;论证,xiv171–73;以及受众,共同理解,238;中心和顾问,190;清晰度,111,188,252–62;作为共同活动,xv;以及沟通,xvi 176 复杂性,266–68 作为对话,4;伦理,296;正式,175–76;增长,88 ;指南(来源和资源),301,305–6 以及学习,175;模型,55 名词化,256–58;补丁,184–85;以及规划,171–73,177–84;质量,188 以及读者,第十八页;理由,第172-173页;记忆,第172页;基于研究,第172-173页第176页;技能,第十五页;来源和资源,第301页,第305-306页;支持,第19-20页;以及思考,第88页第171-173页第175-176页;以及真理,第十七-十八页;理解,第172-173页第175页;研究过程中,第172-173页第176页另见研究论文和报告。

writ­ing: ab­strac­tions, 258–61; of ar­gu­ments, xiv, 171–73; and audi­ence, shared un­der­stand­ing with, 238; cen­ters and con­sult­ants, 190; clar­ity of, 111, 188, 252–62; as com­munal activ­ity, xv; and com­mu­nic­a­tion, xvi, 176; com­plex­ity in, 266–68; as con­ver­sa­tion, 4; eth­ical, 296; formal, 175–76; growth of, 88; guides (sources and re­sources), 301, 305–6; and learn­ing, 175; mod­els for, 55; nom­in­al­iz­a­tions in, 256–58; patch, 184–85; and plan­ning, 171–73, 177–84; qual­ity of, 188; and read­ers, xviii; reas­ons for, 172–73; to re­mem­ber, 172; re­search-based, 172–73, 176; skills, xv; sources and re­sources, 301, 305–6; sup­port for, 19–20; and think­ing, 88, 171–73, 175–76; and truths, xvii–xviii; to un­der­stand, 172–73, 175; while re­search­ing, 172–73, 176. See also re­search pa­pers and re­ports